Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389317 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-22 06:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 306 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:09 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:21 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 05:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:56 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 11:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:27 -0700
Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 10:30 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:37 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 07:13 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 14:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:06 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:17 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 08:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 07:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:21 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 14:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:39 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:22 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:54 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 06:27 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:07 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 06:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 07:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:29 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 04:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 19:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:17 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:06 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-11 06:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 02:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 07:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 06:02 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 21:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 08:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 15:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-17 06:56 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-18 08:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:51 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:30 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:55 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-20 06:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 08:59 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 06:51 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 19:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 04:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 22:50 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 11:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-24 07:37 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:26 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 22:14 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-27 10:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:36 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 03:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 20:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:46 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-31 09:17 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-01 18:26 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 21:04 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-03 07:05 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:52 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-04 05:20 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:20 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-05 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 20:34 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 07:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 05:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 22:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-08 13:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-09 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-09 06:53 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-10 01:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 00:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 06:50 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-10 06:16 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 19:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-10 13:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 03:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:39 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-12 06:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 07:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 03:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:37 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 18:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 07:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-28 20:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:18 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 04:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 22:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 08:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 05:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:21 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 00:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 06:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:15 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:00 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 09:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:18 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 11:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 13:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 06:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-16 03:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 19:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 23:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 13:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 15:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 12:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 16:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-14 18:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 23:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:52 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-15 10:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-08-16 12:25 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-16 06:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 12:09 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 15:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 12:38 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-19 19:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:53 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:50 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 23:39 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:39 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 12:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 08:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 00:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-16 09:12 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-17 13:59 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 17:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-18 08:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-18 06:20 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:58 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-19 18:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-20 12:57 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 09:10 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 21:28 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:44 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 20:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:35 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:44 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-23 19:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 06:57 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-24 05:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:06 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:40 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-30 05:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 20:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 21:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 06:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 03:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:55 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 15:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 20:21 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 13:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 19:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 06:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 18:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 03:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-05 08:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 08:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 04:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:54 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:31 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 11:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 18:55 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 04:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 07:43 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 07:00 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:40 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 17:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:41 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 12:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-22 13:45 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:27 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 13:01 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 04:16 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot back to what he does best: shit eating "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-22 06:06 -0700
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS |
| Message-ID | <8936340a-6544-481a-ae07-9cbf0a9f98dc@googlegroups.com> |
The problems are as follows: 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 16:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <no5jlr$1acb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389317 |
On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > The problems are as follows: > 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how many times you get this wrong. > > 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. > And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 14:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ecab220-fca8-4598-9699-76a04b06d5ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389333 |
On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > The problems are as follows: > > 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. > > Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how > many times you get this wrong. idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. > > > > > 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. > > > > And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this > "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that? Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 17:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <no5oc5$1h2k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389335 |
On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> The problems are as follows: >>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. >> >> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how >> many times you get this wrong. > > idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely > not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. The center of the rod is moving. I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want. >> >>> >>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. >>> >> >> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this >> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that? > > Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid. Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the premise. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 06:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f83663a0-47d2-405d-97b2-0a15c7d6ce29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389343 |
On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> The problems are as follows: > >>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. > >> > >> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how > >> many times you get this wrong. > > > > idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely > > not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. > > The center of the rod is moving. So are the ends of the rod. > > I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to > talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want. There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object. That's why the speed of light is isotropic in any frame. > > > >> > >>> > >>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. > >>> > >> > >> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this > >> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that? > > > > Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid. > > Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It > is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the > premise. > > > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 13:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <no7u6m$1gm3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389374 |
On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> The problems are as follows: >>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. >>>> >>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how >>>> many times you get this wrong. >>> >>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely >>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. >> >> The center of the rod is moving. > > So are the ends of the rod. So? >> >> I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to >> talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want. > > There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object. Empty a false assertion. > That's why the speed of light is isotropic in any frame. >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this >>>> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that? >>> >>> Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid. >> >> Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It >> is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the >> premise. You don't understand this? Or you don't want to look at it? >> >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1e9353c-04c3-46c3-9d14-7a04e6d65ae6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389396 |
On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> The problems are as follows: > >>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. > >>>> > >>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how > >>>> many times you get this wrong. > >>> > >>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely > >>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. > >> > >> The center of the rod is moving. > > > > So are the ends of the rod. > So? So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod. That's why the speed of light in the rod frame is isotropic. Gee you are stupid. > > >> > >> I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to > >> talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want. > > > > There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object. > > Empty a false assertion. Idiot....the speed of light is isotropic in any frame and therefore there is no different closing speeds between light and any object. That's why closing speed is not measurable. > > > That's why the speed of light is isotropic in any frame. > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this > >>>> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that? > >>> > >>> Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid. > >> > >> Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It > >> is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the > >> premise. > > You don't understand this? Or you don't want to look at it? > > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nocl02$383$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389569 |
On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> The problems are as follows: >>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how >>>>>> many times you get this wrong. >>>>> >>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely >>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. >>>> >>>> The center of the rod is moving. >>> >>> So are the ends of the rod. > >> So? > > So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod. No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same? > That's why the speed of light in the rod frame is isotropic. Gee you are stupid. > >> >>>> >>>> I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to >>>> talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want. >>> >>> There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object. >> >> Empty a false assertion. > > Idiot....the speed of light is isotropic in any frame and therefore there is no different > closing speeds between light and any object. Nope. Two different things. I find it interesting that you say that there IS a closing speed but that it's not different, and you also say there IS NO closing speed. You just babble self-contradictory nonsense. > That's why closing speed is not measurable. > >> >>> That's why the speed of light is isotropic in any frame. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this >>>>>> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that? >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid. >>>> >>>> Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It >>>> is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the >>>> premise. >> >> You don't understand this? Or you don't want to look at it? Ken? How do you derive RoS from constancy of speed of light and end up with a conclusion that contradicts the constancy of speed of light? >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 05:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b002097-a469-4470-a483-f1e061bdac88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389572 |
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:14:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> The problems are as follows: > >>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how > >>>>>> many times you get this wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely > >>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. > >>>> > >>>> The center of the rod is moving. > >>> > >>> So are the ends of the rod. > > > >> So? > > > > So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod. > > No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the > ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same? 1. The closing speed of light between the center and the ends of the rod is not measurable. 2. The only closing speed of light between the center and the ends the rod is the OWLS an the OWLS is measurable to be isotropic. 3. There is no difference in closing speed within the fiberoptic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 08:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nofc00$1tso$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389694 |
On 8/10/2016 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:14:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> The problems are as follows: >>>>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how >>>>>>>> many times you get this wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely >>>>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> The center of the rod is moving. >>>>> >>>>> So are the ends of the rod. >>> >>>> So? >>> >>> So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod. >> >> No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the >> ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same? > > 1. The closing speed of light between the center and the ends of the rod is not measurable. Not true. Closing speed is measurable. Simply measure the initial distance between the two closing things, and measure the time it takes to close that distance. The ratio is closing speed. > 2. The only closing speed of light between the center and the ends the rod is the OWLS an the > OWLS is measurable to be isotropic. No, that's also incorrect. You do not know what closing speed. > 3. There is no difference in closing speed within the fiberoptic. Two incorrect premises --> incorrect conclusion. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce1e6e61-77cb-4d82-8b88-d2755df6a2e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389709 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:59:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/2016 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:14:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The problems are as follows: > >>>>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how > >>>>>>>> many times you get this wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely > >>>>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The center of the rod is moving. > >>>>> > >>>>> So are the ends of the rod. > >>> > >>>> So? > >>> > >>> So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod. > >> > >> No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the > >> ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same? > > > > 1. The closing speed of light between the center and the ends of the rod is not measurable. > > Not true. Closing speed is measurable. Simply measure the initial > distance between the two closing things, and measure the time it takes > to close that distance. The ratio is closing speed. Idiot....why don't you give us the closing speeds for Tom's experiments.....gee you are so fucking stupid. Besides, the length of the fiberoptic is the same from both ends and the speed of light in the fiberoptic is c/n in both secments of the fiberoptic the time of travel from both ends will be the same.....gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > 2. The only closing speed of light between the center and the ends the rod is the OWLS an the > > OWLS is measurable to be isotropic. > > No, that's also incorrect. You do not know what closing speed. > > > 3. There is no difference in closing speed within the fiberoptic. > > Two incorrect premises --> incorrect conclusion. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 10:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nofiuk$a1a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389714 |
On 8/10/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:59:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/10/2016 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:14:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The problems are as follows: >>>>>>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how >>>>>>>>>> many times you get this wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely >>>>>>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The center of the rod is moving. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So are the ends of the rod. >>>>> >>>>>> So? >>>>> >>>>> So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod. >>>> >>>> No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the >>>> ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same? >>> >>> 1. The closing speed of light between the center and the ends of the rod is not measurable. >> >> Not true. Closing speed is measurable. Simply measure the initial >> distance between the two closing things, and measure the time it takes >> to close that distance. The ratio is closing speed. > > Idiot....why don't you give us the closing speeds for Tom's experiments. The measurements have not been done yet. The experiment is in design stage. > ....gee you are so fucking stupid. You always get frothy like this when you realize you've said something stupid. > Besides, the length of the fiberoptic is the same from both ends and the speed of > light in the fiberoptic is c/n in both secments of the fiberoptic the time of travel from > both ends will be the same. Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of arrival will be different in the rod frame. You didn't understand the point of the experiment? > ....gee you are so fucking stupid. > >> >>> 2. The only closing speed of light between the center and the ends the rod is the OWLS an the >>> OWLS is measurable to be isotropic. >> >> No, that's also incorrect. You do not know what closing speed. >> >>> 3. There is no difference in closing speed within the fiberoptic. >> >> Two incorrect premises --> incorrect conclusion. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11281f5a-c88e-4dbd-85f3-24a4b482b67c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389717 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:58:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested > is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be > the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different > in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of > arrival will be different in the rod frame. > > You didn't understand the point of the experiment? Dont you find that he is a mirror image of idiot dono!? Something fishy going on...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 11:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noflsn$f1i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389718 |
On 8/10/2016 11:14 AM, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:58:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/10/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested >> is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be >> the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different >> in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of >> arrival will be different in the rod frame. >> >> You didn't understand the point of the experiment? > > Dont you find that he is a mirror image of idiot dono!? Something fishy going on... > Dono is not senile. Ken is as useful as a pile of 1954 Akron telephone books and as dumb as half a bale of cotton. Dono at least has not spent money on TWO editions of a failed self-published book, as far as I know. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <361c9c7c-4f0e-45e5-aa65-b701b91a83f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389721 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:48:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/2016 11:14 AM, rotchm wrote: > Dono is not senile. Ken is as useful as a pile of 1954 Akron telephone > books and as dumb as half a bale of cotton. Dono at least has not spent > money on TWO editions of a failed self-published book, as far as I know. And that's because idiot dono is aware that he can not write anything sensible. No publisher would want to publish his text that will contain 30% of slanders! I find idiot ken more useful than idiot dono, since he is more funny!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 10:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Stephane Baune fraud eats shit |
| Message-ID | <48393f19-77e2-4325-9249-976540772cce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389722 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:27:55 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:48:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 8/10/2016 11:14 AM, rotchm wrote: > > > Dono is not senile. Ken is as useful as a pile of 1954 Akron telephone > > books and as dumb as half a bale of cotton. Dono at least has not spent > > money on TWO editions of a failed self-published book, as far as I know. > > And that's because <snip cretinisms> Coming from the anti-relativistic cretin Stephane Baune this is rich: https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/physics/publications Published any new crackpoteries in the rag journal Galilean Electrodynamics lately, Stephane ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 14:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit |
| Message-ID | <6459d665-fc93-4f52-a2bd-f088d799ba44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389723 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > Coming from the anti-relativistic How can you say that I'm an anti-relativist when I support/defend SR? You're very confused idiot dono...very confused. > Published any new crackpoteries in the rag journal Galilean > Electrodynamics lately, Stephane ? Wrong name, but you know that. No crackpoteries. We know that you are jealous of us all and that you have nothing to show for yourself except for your continuous errors here in this NG. Yes I published more articles, but not in GED. I have another in the Can.Math.Soc. and another in a physics publication (I will let you find it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 22:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit |
| Message-ID | <c32e9c50-9665-44b0-83a3-76dbe5918a07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389743 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > Coming from the anti-relativistic > > How can you say that I'm an anti-relativist when I support/defend SR? Liar , liar , pants on fire: https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/physics/publications
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 07:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit |
| Message-ID | <bcac9634-1872-4b71-8992-d11e2274b2e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389768 |
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:37:06 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > > > Coming from the anti-relativistic > > > > How can you say that I'm an anti-relativist when I support/defend SR? > > Liar , liar , pants on fire: > > https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/physics/publications ?? Those publications support SR. So, how do you figure out that they are anti-relativistic ?? You are mighty confused idiot dono.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 14:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit |
| Message-ID | <4e0b04b6-dbaa-41c2-9e0b-ecb90ce8abbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389783 |
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 7:13:47 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:37:06 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > Coming from the anti-relativistic > > > > > > How can you say that I'm an anti-relativist when I support/defend SR? > > > > Liar , liar , pants on fire: > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/physics/publications > > ?? > > Those publications support SR. LOL, this shows the magnitude of your crackpoterry, Stephane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web