Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424326 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-09 12:50 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-08-20 14:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 558 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 12:50 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-10 09:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-09 16:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-10 19:09 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 11:00 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-11 11:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 19:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-11 16:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-12 10:41 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 11:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-12 13:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-07-12 21:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 09:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 11:41 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-14 19:39 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-13 22:30 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-12 10:46 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Laverne Chandler <uunvvnh@ewdnrawe.ee> - 2017-07-12 22:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 11:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-15 08:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 18:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-16 18:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-16 04:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 09:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-16 16:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 09:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-17 19:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-17 20:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:23 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-18 16:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-18 17:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-22 09:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 21:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 15:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Huuouka Tokoji <ktukjoau@huywkoyu.uu> - 2017-07-23 14:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:11 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 08:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 22:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 17:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 20:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 01:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 12:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 13:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 20:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 12:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 20:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 15:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 05:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:32 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:22 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-24 20:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-24 09:16 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 08:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 23:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-27 14:33 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 09:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-29 11:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 10:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 13:57 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 17:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-30 23:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-01 11:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-31 10:43 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-01 11:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 21:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-21 19:37 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-22 15:30 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 06:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 13:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 14:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 16:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 02:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 10:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 14:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-23 16:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 14:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 20:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-26 13:28 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-07-26 17:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 15:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-27 11:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 22:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 08:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 09:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 18:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 04:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 14:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 08:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 19:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 09:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 02:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 03:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 15:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 20:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:33 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:51 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:02 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-02 17:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 23:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 20:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 06:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 08:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-06 03:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 05:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 10:08 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 18:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-07 05:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:47 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-04 09:33 -0400
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-04 16:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 00:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 16:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-05 07:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-06 09:02 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-05 19:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 09:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-07 04:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 14:08 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 14:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:47 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 06:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 08:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 08:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-08 15:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 14:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-08 21:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 14:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 15:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 20:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:45 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 07:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 19:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 19:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 05:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 07:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:18 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 13:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 21:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 01:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 06:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 09:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 19:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 20:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 20:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 21:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 19:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 23:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 17:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 01:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:32 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-09 15:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 10:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 08:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 18:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:20 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 14:54 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 01:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 11:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 11:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 14:57 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 11:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:50 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 17:11 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-11 12:05 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:24 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 10:54 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 10:22 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 08:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:21 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:34 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:55 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 17:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:13 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:45 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:29 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 18:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 20:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:25 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 15:02 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 09:52 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 14:12 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-12 16:39 -0400
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:30 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 14:22 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 05:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 08:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:49 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:08 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-14 13:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Prudence Oppenheimer <phow@innfldo.sp> - 2017-08-14 19:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-14 15:42 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 17:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-15 10:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-15 09:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:19 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 19:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 03:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 03:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 04:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 06:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:19 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 17:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:53 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:50 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 01:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 13:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 07:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:54 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-15 11:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 19:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 08:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:33 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 10:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:41 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 14:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 12:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 23:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 23:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 10:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 11:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 12:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 14:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 15:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 20:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-17 05:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 13:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-18 03:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-18 04:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 16:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 23:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 00:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 09:13 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 16:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 14:05 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 05:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-17 08:57 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 19:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 07:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 23:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-13 23:10 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 22:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 10:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 23:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 01:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 08:55 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 23:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-08 07:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 03:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 20:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-08 23:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 23:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:54 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 07:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 09:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-07 05:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 08:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 18:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-04 20:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 16:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-28 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 09:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 12:03 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 04:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 21:39 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-29 11:07 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 22:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-29 16:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 06:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 12:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 23:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 17:28 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 11:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 21:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 15:34 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 04:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 22:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 05:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 21:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 15:47 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 04:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 22:34 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 15:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 10:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 20:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 14:05 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 21:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 14:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 15:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 11:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:18 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-03 13:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 01:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 23:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 02:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 21:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:00 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 09:30 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 12:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 18:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 20:43 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 11:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:35 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-30 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-01 11:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 03:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 18:58 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 10:58 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 02:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 22:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 08:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 11:57 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-04 12:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 21:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-04 15:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 07:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 14:13 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 16:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 06:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-06 13:03 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:09 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 22:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 10:18 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 08:59 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:00 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 19:10 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 10:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 10:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:03 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 13:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:18 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:48 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-26 13:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-22 05:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:04 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-25 09:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 12:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 19:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-27 06:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 01:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 19:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 18:49 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 14:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 09:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 05:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 07:09 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 15:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 10:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:37 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-01 06:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-02 13:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 22:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 07:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 06:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:31 -0700
Page 5 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 28 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <olpgei$8bh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #426742 |
Den 01.08.2017 01.16, skrev HGW...: > On 31/07/17 18:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Why does the fact which "relativity is all about", namely that >> the speed of the accelerating spaceship would decrease relative >> to about half the objects in the universe make this article >> "fall apart"? >> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf >> >> Can't you answer, Henry? > > I wouldn't waste my time...The article is nonsense from the first > paragraph. > OK. Your capitulation is accepted. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 21:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <359ac3ef-1823-4e4d-9c98-238aafe1d4b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424326 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html > -- The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him. Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track? If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train. The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor. No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 19:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ete0bdFq2k8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #425729 |
On 21/07/2017 2:04 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html >> -- > > The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him. > > Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track? > If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train. > The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor. > No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart. > The the distance between the marks is the length of the train in the frame of the track, which is less than the proper length of the train. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb2dd30d-97c0-47ef-b948-c88cf23ec075@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425736 |
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:37:54 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/07/2017 2:04 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > >> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html > >> -- > > > > The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him. > > > > Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track? > > If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train. > > The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor. > > No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart. > > > > The the distance between the marks is the length of the train in the > frame of the track, which is less than the proper length of the train. > > Sylvia. No, the train has the same length in both frames of reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 15:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <etg677FaefqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #425744 |
On 21/07/2017 10:34 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:37:54 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 21/07/2017 2:04 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html >>>> -- >>> >>> The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him. >>> >>> Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track? >>> If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train. >>> The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor. >>> No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart. >>> >> >> The the distance between the marks is the length of the train in the >> frame of the track, which is less than the proper length of the train. >> >> Sylvia. > > No, the train has the same length in both frames of reference. > Well, if you choose to ignore a century of research, and instead just assume a result that suits your preconceptions about how things should be, then you can conclude anything. You'll still be wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 06:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad3e6999-886a-4531-a404-6070a1a17f9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425811 |
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 10:30:18 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/07/2017 10:34 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:37:54 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 21/07/2017 2:04 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> >>>> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html
> >>>> --
> >>>
> >>> The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him.
> >>>
> >>> Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track?
> >>> If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train.
> >>> The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor.
> >>> No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The the distance between the marks is the length of the train in the
> >> frame of the track, which is less than the proper length of the train.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > No, the train has the same length in both frames of reference.
> >
>
>
> Well, if you choose to ignore a century of research, and instead just
> assume a result that suits your preconceptions about how things should
> be, then you can conclude anything.
>
> You'll still be wrong.
>
> Sylvia.
No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation equations were thrown into the trash.
But it is Einstein's idea of a slower clock that proves scientists of today wrong. If we have two clocks, and one is slower than the other, then the correct way to do the mathematics is to use the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each rate of time. So if there is a slower clock in S', then the equations would be
x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a slower clock in S'. This describes correctly what Einstein was trying to describe with the Lorentz equations in his theory of Special Relativity. If n' is a slower clock, then v' is a faster velocity, which is what reality shows us.
But notice also that these equations are not limited to a slower clock the way Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations is in Special Relativity. They can also describe a faster clock, such as we see in GPS satellites, which scientists attribute to the effects of General Relativity. What we do not see in these equations is the length contraction, nor do we see the contradiction inherent in the scientific interpretation of the Lorentz equations, that from S', a clock in S will appear slower than a clock in S'. The clock in S' stays slower as seen from S'.
So, no, I am not ignoring a century of research. I am just working the mathematics correctly.
Now you can also take this further and show what Einstein is actually doing with the Lorentz equations. He used them to determine what velocities would be using scientific time, or time counted by transitions of cesium atoms. If the transitions are slowing down and speeding up relative to conditions of motion and gravitation, then we should be able to use two sets of Galilean transformation equations as shown above to do the same thing. Einstein used the Lorentz equations and
u=dx/dt
u'=dx'/dt'
to get his equation u' = (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2)
So we say
x'=x-vt
dx'=dx-vdt
dx' = dx/dt - v
dx' = dt(u - v)
But we have to use n', not t', because t' in the Galilean transformation equations equals t and only applies to the first set of Galilean transformation equations. So our equations would be
u = dx/dt
u' = dx'/dn'
How do we relate n' to t? According to scientists, the speed of light is always c = 186,000 miles per second. So whether we are using t or n' we get this speed for light. So we can say
x = ct, x' = cn'
Now we run into a further complication and find that we are dealing with velocity of light rather than speed of light. If light is directed in the -x, -x' direction, it has a velocity of -c.
x = -ct, x' = -cn'
So to accommodate both directions, we have to say
cn'= ct - vt
n' = t - vt/c
-cn' = -ct - vt
n' = t - vt/-c
So the equation that accommodates both directions is
n' = t - vx/c^2
It should be noted that this equation is now referring to light because of the substitution of ct and -ct into the equation. There would be one specific x for any given t as the distance light travels in that time. So now we can determine u'.
n' = t - vx/c^2
dn' = dt - vdx/c^2
dn' = dt(1 - v dx/dt / c^2)
dn' = dt(1 - vu/c^2)
u' = dx'/dn' = dt(u-v)/dt(1-vu/c^2)
u' = (u-v)/(1-vu/c^2)
which is the exact velocity that Einstein obtained using the Lorentz equations. Now what exactly it means, I could not really tell you, but it is definitely Galilean in origin, so when you say that a century of research has proven the Galilean transformation equations wrong, I pay no attention to that because I can work the mathematics for myself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anne <0140519@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28ca8161-6fe3-4749-b582-b0f11682c21d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425828 |
On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 2:24:46 PM UTC+1, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 10:30:18 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 21/07/2017 10:34 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:37:54 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 21/07/2017 2:04 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > > >>>> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html > > >>>> -- > > >>> > > >>> The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him. > > >>> > > >>> Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track? > > >>> If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train. > > >>> The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor. > > >>> No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart. > > >>> > > >> > > >> The the distance between the marks is the length of the train in the > > >> frame of the track, which is less than the proper length of the train. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > No, the train has the same length in both frames of reference. > > > > > > > > > Well, if you choose to ignore a century of research, and instead just > > assume a result that suits your preconceptions about how things should > > be, then you can conclude anything. > > > > You'll still be wrong. > > > > Sylvia. > > No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation equations were thrown into the trash. > But it is Einstein's idea of a slower clock that proves scientists of today wrong. If we have two clocks, and one is slower than the other, then the correct way to do the mathematics is to use the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each rate of time. So if there is a slower clock in S', then the equations would be > > x' = x - vt > y' = y > z' = z > t' = t > > x = x' - v'n' > y = y' > z = z' > n = n' > > t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a slower clock in S'. This describes correctly what Einstein was trying to describe with the Lorentz equations in his theory of Special Relativity. If n' is a slower clock, then v' is a faster velocity, which is what reality shows us. > But notice also that these equations are not limited to a slower clock the way Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations is in Special Relativity. They can also describe a faster clock, such as we see in GPS satellites, which scientists attribute to the effects of General Relativity. What we do not see in these equations is the length contraction, nor do we see the contradiction inherent in the scientific interpretation of the Lorentz equations, that from S', a clock in S will appear slower than a clock in S'. The clock in S' stays slower as seen from S'. > So, no, I am not ignoring a century of research. I am just working the mathematics correctly. > Now you can also take this further and show what Einstein is actually doing with the Lorentz equations. He used them to determine what velocities would be using scientific time, or time counted by transitions of cesium atoms. If the transitions are slowing down and speeding up relative to conditions of motion and gravitation, then we should be able to use two sets of Galilean transformation equations as shown above to do the same thing. Einstein used the Lorentz equations and > > u=dx/dt > u'=dx'/dt' > > to get his equation u' = (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) > > So we say > > x'=x-vt > dx'=dx-vdt > dx' = dx/dt - v > dx' = dt(u - v) > > But we have to use n', not t', because t' in the Galilean transformation equations equals t and only applies to the first set of Galilean transformation equations. So our equations would be > > u = dx/dt > u' = dx'/dn' > > How do we relate n' to t? According to scientists, the speed of light is always c = 186,000 miles per second. So whether we are using t or n' we get this speed for light. So we can say > > x = ct, x' = cn' > > Now we run into a further complication and find that we are dealing with velocity of light rather than speed of light. If light is directed in the -x, -x' direction, it has a velocity of -c. > > x = -ct, x' = -cn' > > So to accommodate both directions, we have to say > > cn'= ct - vt > n' = t - vt/c > > -cn' = -ct - vt > n' = t - vt/-c > > So the equation that accommodates both directions is > > n' = t - vx/c^2 > > It should be noted that this equation is now referring to light because of the substitution of ct and -ct into the equation. There would be one specific x for any given t as the distance light travels in that time. So now we can determine u'. > > n' = t - vx/c^2 > dn' = dt - vdx/c^2 > dn' = dt(1 - v dx/dt / c^2) > dn' = dt(1 - vu/c^2) > > u' = dx'/dn' = dt(u-v)/dt(1-vu/c^2) > u' = (u-v)/(1-vu/c^2) > > which is the exact velocity that Einstein obtained using the Lorentz equations. Now what exactly it means, I could not really tell you, but it is definitely Galilean in origin, so when you say that a century of research has proven the Galilean transformation equations wrong, I pay no attention to that because I can work the mathematics for myself. but how would you use these equation to show that a second light ray travelling perpendicular to the x-axis, say z= c t, will also have velocity c in the moving frame?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b95b896-8f3a-453a-9d20-da5b86b84f44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425863 |
On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 1:51:06 PM UTC-7, anne wrote: > On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 2:24:46 PM UTC+1, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 10:30:18 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 21/07/2017 10:34 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:37:54 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 21/07/2017 2:04 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > >>> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > > > >>>> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html > > > >>>> -- > > > >>> > > > >>> The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him. > > > >>> > > > >>> Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track? > > > >>> If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train. > > > >>> The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor. > > > >>> No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> The the distance between the marks is the length of the train in the > > > >> frame of the track, which is less than the proper length of the train. > > > >> > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > No, the train has the same length in both frames of reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if you choose to ignore a century of research, and instead just > > > assume a result that suits your preconceptions about how things should > > > be, then you can conclude anything. > > > > > > You'll still be wrong. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation equations were thrown into the trash. > > But it is Einstein's idea of a slower clock that proves scientists of today wrong. If we have two clocks, and one is slower than the other, then the correct way to do the mathematics is to use the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each rate of time. So if there is a slower clock in S', then the equations would be > > > > x' = x - vt > > y' = y > > z' = z > > t' = t > > > > x = x' - v'n' > > y = y' > > z = z' > > n = n' > > > > t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a slower clock in S'. This describes correctly what Einstein was trying to describe with the Lorentz equations in his theory of Special Relativity. If n' is a slower clock, then v' is a faster velocity, which is what reality shows us. > > But notice also that these equations are not limited to a slower clock the way Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations is in Special Relativity. They can also describe a faster clock, such as we see in GPS satellites, which scientists attribute to the effects of General Relativity. What we do not see in these equations is the length contraction, nor do we see the contradiction inherent in the scientific interpretation of the Lorentz equations, that from S', a clock in S will appear slower than a clock in S'. The clock in S' stays slower as seen from S'. > > So, no, I am not ignoring a century of research. I am just working the mathematics correctly. > > Now you can also take this further and show what Einstein is actually doing with the Lorentz equations. He used them to determine what velocities would be using scientific time, or time counted by transitions of cesium atoms. If the transitions are slowing down and speeding up relative to conditions of motion and gravitation, then we should be able to use two sets of Galilean transformation equations as shown above to do the same thing. Einstein used the Lorentz equations and > > > > u=dx/dt > > u'=dx'/dt' > > > > to get his equation u' = (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) > > > > So we say > > > > x'=x-vt > > dx'=dx-vdt > > dx' = dx/dt - v > > dx' = dt(u - v) > > > > But we have to use n', not t', because t' in the Galilean transformation equations equals t and only applies to the first set of Galilean transformation equations. So our equations would be > > > > u = dx/dt > > u' = dx'/dn' > > > > How do we relate n' to t? According to scientists, the speed of light is always c = 186,000 miles per second. So whether we are using t or n' we get this speed for light. So we can say > > > > x = ct, x' = cn' > > > > Now we run into a further complication and find that we are dealing with velocity of light rather than speed of light. If light is directed in the -x, -x' direction, it has a velocity of -c. > > > > x = -ct, x' = -cn' > > > > So to accommodate both directions, we have to say > > > > cn'= ct - vt > > n' = t - vt/c > > > > -cn' = -ct - vt > > n' = t - vt/-c > > > > So the equation that accommodates both directions is > > > > n' = t - vx/c^2 > > > > It should be noted that this equation is now referring to light because of the substitution of ct and -ct into the equation. There would be one specific x for any given t as the distance light travels in that time. So now we can determine u'. > > > > n' = t - vx/c^2 > > dn' = dt - vdx/c^2 > > dn' = dt(1 - v dx/dt / c^2) > > dn' = dt(1 - vu/c^2) > > > > u' = dx'/dn' = dt(u-v)/dt(1-vu/c^2) > > u' = (u-v)/(1-vu/c^2) > > > > which is the exact velocity that Einstein obtained using the Lorentz equations. Now what exactly it means, I could not really tell you, but it is definitely Galilean in origin, so when you say that a century of research has proven the Galilean transformation equations wrong, I pay no attention to that because I can work the mathematics for myself. > > but how would you use these equation to show that a second light ray travelling perpendicular to the x-axis, say z= c t, will also have velocity c in the moving frame? You just wrote it down. z=ct, z'=cn' Light expands as a sphere from the point where it is emitted as a sphere with a radius of ct in S and as a sphere with a radius of cn' in S'. Other than that you would have to ask scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 16:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ol1go5$1qlh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425864 |
On 23/07/17 07:13, Robert Winn wrote: > > You just wrote it down. z=ct, z'=cn' Light expands as a sphere from > the point where it is emitted as a sphere with a radius of ct in S > and as a sphere with a radius of cn' in S'. Utter balderdash! How can anyone believe such crap? M|-------L-------S---------------|M M|---------------O------L--------|M >v (O>v) Let S emit a spherical pulse of light, part of which will reflect off two mirrors. Moving observer O has two similar mirrors which are adjacent to those of S at the instant of emission. L is the distance from S to the mirrors. The pulse moves at c relative to S. . From the POV of the S frame: The pulse will return to S at the same instant from both directions. The pulse reaches O's LH mirror after L/(c+v) seconds when the mirror has moved vL/c+v) and the RH mirror after L/(c-v) seconds when that mirror has moved vL/(c-v). There are two possibilities concerning the speeds of the pulses that are reflected from O's mirrors. In the S frame, they could either move at (a) c relative to the mirrors, ie., at c+v and c-v or (b) at the incident speed in the mirror frame, at c+2v and c-2v (in the S frame). (Note nobody has measured the OW speed of light reflected from a moving mirror) If (a): the LH pulse takes time t to travel from O's M to O. where (c+v)t - vt = L or t = L/c. Similarly, the RH pulse takes time L/c to travel from the mirror to O. So the total times are L/(c+v)+ L/c and L/(c-v)+L/c....which are not equal. If (b) then for the LH pulse to reach O, (c+2v)t-vt = L , so t = L/(c+v) and for the RH one, tr = L/(c-v) The total times are respectively 2L/(c+v) and 2L/(c-v), which are again not equal. The pulse speeds are obviously c+v and c-v in the O frame. Of course you will claim that the lengths and times are contracted and will introduce the LTs so that the two times appear to be equal. That doesn't prove anything. Not one aspect of LET or SR has been verified experimentally. That is all that matters. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f91bc869-fa81-4f3e-85b8-c65fc546248a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425884 |
On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 11:46:33 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > On 23/07/17 07:13, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > You just wrote it down. z=ct, z'=cn' Light expands as a sphere from > > the point where it is emitted as a sphere with a radius of ct in S > > and as a sphere with a radius of cn' in S'. > > Utter balderdash! How can anyone believe such crap? > > M|-------L-------S---------------|M > M|---------------O------L--------|M >v > (O>v) > > Let S emit a spherical pulse of light, part of which will reflect off > two mirrors. Moving observer O has two similar mirrors which are > adjacent to those of S at the instant of emission. L is the distance > from S to the mirrors. The pulse moves at c relative to S. > . > From the POV of the S frame: > > The pulse will return to S at the same instant from both directions. > The pulse reaches O's LH mirror after L/(c+v) seconds when the mirror > has moved vL/c+v) and the RH mirror after L/(c-v) seconds when that > mirror has moved vL/(c-v). > > There are two possibilities concerning the speeds of the pulses that are > reflected from O's mirrors. In the S frame, they could either move at > (a) c relative to the mirrors, ie., at c+v and c-v or (b) at the > incident speed in the mirror frame, at c+2v and c-2v (in the S frame). > (Note nobody has measured the OW speed of light reflected from a moving > mirror) > > If (a): the LH pulse takes time t to travel from O's M to O. > where (c+v)t - vt = L or t = L/c. Similarly, the RH pulse takes time L/c > to travel from the mirror to O. So the total times are L/(c+v)+ L/c and > L/(c-v)+L/c....which are not equal. > > If (b) then for the LH pulse to reach O, (c+2v)t-vt = L , so t = L/(c+v) > and for the RH one, tr = L/(c-v) > > The total times are respectively 2L/(c+v) and 2L/(c-v), which are again > not equal. > > The pulse speeds are obviously c+v and c-v in the O frame. > > Of course you will claim that the lengths and times are contracted and > will introduce the LTs so that the two times appear to be equal. That > doesn't prove anything. Not one aspect of LET or SR has been verified > experimentally. That is all that matters. > > > > > > -- No, I agree with you, but you are using absolute time, which scientists threw away in 1887. If there is a faster or slower clock in S', as scientists of today claim, then the time of that clock has to be converted to the time of a clock in frame of reference S before doing what you did. In my mathematics, I am assuming that scientists are right in their experimental data which says that the rate of transitions of cesium atoms varies according to conditions of motion and gravitation. That would mean that atomic or scientific time cannot be used with the Galilean transformation equations you are using. If you have two different rates of time, then the only way to express this with the Galilean transformation equations is by using those equations more than once with different variables for time and velocity in the equations. For instance, Einstein says he has a slower clock in S' in his Special Theory of Relativity. Scientists all say, Einstein was right, the clock in S' is slower. If the clock in S' is slower, then the time of that clock must be converted to the rate of time of the clock in S before using the Galilean transformation equations as you are doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 12:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ol3li3$1mtp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425904 |
On 24/07/17 01:02, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 11:46:33 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >> On 23/07/17 07:13, Robert Winn wrote: >> >>> >>> You just wrote it down. z=ct, z'=cn' Light expands as a sphere >>> from the point where it is emitted as a sphere with a radius of >>> ct in S and as a sphere with a radius of cn' in S'. >> >> Utter balderdash! How can anyone believe such crap? >> >> M|-------L-------S---------------|M >> M|---------------O------L--------|M >v (O>v) >> >> Let S emit a spherical pulse of light, part of which will reflect >> off two mirrors. Moving observer O has two similar mirrors which >> are adjacent to those of S at the instant of emission. L is the >> distance from S to the mirrors. The pulse moves at c relative to >> S. . From the POV of the S frame: >> >> The pulse will return to S at the same instant from both >> directions. The pulse reaches O's LH mirror after L/(c+v) seconds >> when the mirror has moved vL/c+v) and the RH mirror after L/(c-v) >> seconds when that mirror has moved vL/(c-v). >> >> There are two possibilities concerning the speeds of the pulses >> that are reflected from O's mirrors. In the S frame, they could >> either move at (a) c relative to the mirrors, ie., at c+v and c-v >> or (b) at the incident speed in the mirror frame, at c+2v and c-2v >> (in the S frame). (Note nobody has measured the OW speed of light >> reflected from a moving mirror) >> >> If (a): the LH pulse takes time t to travel from O's M to O. where >> (c+v)t - vt = L or t = L/c. Similarly, the RH pulse takes time L/c >> to travel from the mirror to O. So the total times are L/(c+v)+ L/c >> and L/(c-v)+L/c....which are not equal. >> >> If (b) then for the LH pulse to reach O, (c+2v)t-vt = L , so t = >> L/(c+v) and for the RH one, tr = L/(c-v) >> >> The total times are respectively 2L/(c+v) and 2L/(c-v), which are >> again not equal. >> >> The pulse speeds are obviously c+v and c-v in the O frame. >> >> Of course you will claim that the lengths and times are contracted >> and will introduce the LTs so that the two times appear to be >> equal. That doesn't prove anything. Not one aspect of LET or SR has >> been verified experimentally. That is all that matters. > No, I agree with you, but you are using absolute time, which > scientists threw away in 1887. If there is a faster or slower clock > in S', as scientists of today claim, then the time of that clock has > to be converted to the time of a clock in frame of reference S before > doing what you did. In my mathematics, I am assuming that scientists > are right in their experimental data which says that the rate of > transitions of cesium atoms varies according to conditions of motion > and gravitation. That is not right and has never been shown to be true. It fact it is totally illogical. Time cannot be a function of speed because htat would make it a function of itself. If a clock changes slightly when sent into orbit, that is not at all surprising. Even a diamond crystal will change when relieved of gravitational self compression. > That would mean that atomic or scientific time > cannot be used with the Galilean transformation equations you are > using. If you have two different rates of time, then the only way to > express this with the Galilean transformation equations is by using > those equations more than once with different variables for time and > velocity in the equations. For instance, Einstein says he has a > slower clock in S' in his Special Theory of Relativity. Scientists > all say, Einstein was right, the clock in S' is slower. If the clock > in S' is slower, then the time of that clock must be converted to the > rate of time of the clock in S before using the Galilean > transformation equations as you are doing. Einstein's 'different rates of time' follow from his P2, the assumption that a spherical light pulse is spherical in all frames. All you are doing is showing the consistency of SR's predictions with its postulates. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 20:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <349bc129-37cc-4b9b-b2e5-fc6ec056c777@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425940 |
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:20:56 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > On 24/07/17 01:02, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 11:46:33 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > >> On 23/07/17 07:13, Robert Winn wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> You just wrote it down. z=ct, z'=cn' Light expands as a sphere > >>> from the point where it is emitted as a sphere with a radius of > >>> ct in S and as a sphere with a radius of cn' in S'. > >> > >> Utter balderdash! How can anyone believe such crap? > >> > >> M|-------L-------S---------------|M > >> M|---------------O------L--------|M >v (O>v) > >> > >> Let S emit a spherical pulse of light, part of which will reflect > >> off two mirrors. Moving observer O has two similar mirrors which > >> are adjacent to those of S at the instant of emission. L is the > >> distance from S to the mirrors. The pulse moves at c relative to > >> S. . From the POV of the S frame: > >> > >> The pulse will return to S at the same instant from both > >> directions. The pulse reaches O's LH mirror after L/(c+v) seconds > >> when the mirror has moved vL/c+v) and the RH mirror after L/(c-v) > >> seconds when that mirror has moved vL/(c-v). > >> > >> There are two possibilities concerning the speeds of the pulses > >> that are reflected from O's mirrors. In the S frame, they could > >> either move at (a) c relative to the mirrors, ie., at c+v and c-v > >> or (b) at the incident speed in the mirror frame, at c+2v and c-2v > >> (in the S frame). (Note nobody has measured the OW speed of light > >> reflected from a moving mirror) > >> > >> If (a): the LH pulse takes time t to travel from O's M to O. where > >> (c+v)t - vt = L or t = L/c. Similarly, the RH pulse takes time L/c > >> to travel from the mirror to O. So the total times are L/(c+v)+ L/c > >> and L/(c-v)+L/c....which are not equal. > >> > >> If (b) then for the LH pulse to reach O, (c+2v)t-vt = L , so t = > >> L/(c+v) and for the RH one, tr = L/(c-v) > >> > >> The total times are respectively 2L/(c+v) and 2L/(c-v), which are > >> again not equal. > >> > >> The pulse speeds are obviously c+v and c-v in the O frame. > >> > >> Of course you will claim that the lengths and times are contracted > >> and will introduce the LTs so that the two times appear to be > >> equal. That doesn't prove anything. Not one aspect of LET or SR has > >> been verified experimentally. That is all that matters. > > > No, I agree with you, but you are using absolute time, which > > scientists threw away in 1887. If there is a faster or slower clock > > in S', as scientists of today claim, then the time of that clock has > > to be converted to the time of a clock in frame of reference S before > > doing what you did. In my mathematics, I am assuming that scientists > > are right in their experimental data which says that the rate of > > transitions of cesium atoms varies according to conditions of motion > > and gravitation. > > That is not right and has never been shown to be true. It fact it is > totally illogical. Time cannot be a function of speed because htat would > make it a function of itself. > If a clock changes slightly when sent into orbit, that is not at all > surprising. Even a diamond crystal will change when relieved of > gravitational self compression. > > > That would mean that atomic or scientific time > > cannot be used with the Galilean transformation equations you are > > using. If you have two different rates of time, then the only way to > > express this with the Galilean transformation equations is by using > > those equations more than once with different variables for time and > > velocity in the equations. For instance, Einstein says he has a > > slower clock in S' in his Special Theory of Relativity. Scientists > > all say, Einstein was right, the clock in S' is slower. If the clock > > in S' is slower, then the time of that clock must be converted to the > > rate of time of the clock in S before using the Galilean > > transformation equations as you are doing. > > Einstein's 'different rates of time' follow from his P2, the assumption > that a spherical light pulse is spherical in all frames. All you are > doing is showing the consistency of SR's predictions with its postulates. > > > > -- Well, scientists are misinterpreting the equations by saying they are transformation equations. They are really just equations that show how long it takes light to travel from one place to another according to the interpretation scientists have that light always travels at 186,000 miles per second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 11:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ol4e7q$pkb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425945 |
Robert Winn, idiot jesuit, wrote: > Well, scientists are misinterpreting the equations by saying > they are transformation equations. Quite the other way around, Mr Winn. You are misinterpreting almost every equations you've been in contact with. > They are really just equations that show how long it takes light > to travel from one place to another You confuse transformation equations with propagation equation, you've always did. You should consider (but you won't as you are an stubborn imbecile), that Relativity is not only about events concerning light, but about ALL kind of events. Both theoretically (equations) and practically (experiments) > according to the interpretation scientists > have that light always travels at 186,000 miles per second. Complete meaningless gibberish, Mr Winn, "interpretation ... that light always travels at ..." is either a hypothesis or a experimental fact. In no way it may be an "interpretation". You do have deep cognitive disabilities, most of your language makes no sense at all. And you are an idiot jesuit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 02:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9035f0db-d534-43b4-8f96-2082c49ef549@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425966 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 lipca 2017 11:22:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Python napisał: > Complete meaningless gibberish, Mr Winn, "interpretation ... that > light always travels at ..." is either a hypothesis or a experimental > fact. In no way it may be an "interpretation". A moron said! The moron knows. And whoever denies the moron, denies REALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52537e61-d70d-4638-9c8e-c1250ea91ee0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425966 |
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 2:22:05 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn, idiot jesuit, wrote: > > Well, scientists are misinterpreting the equations by saying > > they are transformation equations. > > Quite the other way around, Mr Winn. You are misinterpreting almost > every equations you've been in contact with. > > > They are really just equations that show how long it takes light > > to travel from one place to another > > You confuse transformation equations with propagation equation, you've > always did. > > You should consider (but you won't as you are an stubborn imbecile), > that Relativity is not only about events concerning light, but about ALL > kind of events. Both theoretically (equations) and practically > (experiments) > > > according to the interpretation scientists > > have that light always travels at 186,000 miles per second. > > Complete meaningless gibberish, Mr Winn, "interpretation ... that > light always travels at ..." is either a hypothesis or a experimental > fact. In no way it may be an "interpretation". You do have deep > cognitive disabilities, most of your language makes no sense at all. > > And you are an idiot jesuit. See, now we have proof of the resurrection. Perrti Lounesto is back from the dead. You do not understand the Galilean transformation equations because they describe relativity without a length contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol7pn1$md3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425969 |
On 7/24/17 6:51 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 2:22:05 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Robert Winn, idiot jesuit, wrote: >>> Well, scientists are misinterpreting the equations by saying >>> they are transformation equations. >> >> Quite the other way around, Mr Winn. You are misinterpreting almost >> every equations you've been in contact with. >> >>> They are really just equations that show how long it takes light >>> to travel from one place to another >> >> You confuse transformation equations with propagation equation, you've >> always did. >> >> You should consider (but you won't as you are an stubborn imbecile), >> that Relativity is not only about events concerning light, but about ALL >> kind of events. Both theoretically (equations) and practically >> (experiments) >> >>> according to the interpretation scientists >>> have that light always travels at 186,000 miles per second. >> >> Complete meaningless gibberish, Mr Winn, "interpretation ... that >> light always travels at ..." is either a hypothesis or a experimental >> fact. In no way it may be an "interpretation". You do have deep >> cognitive disabilities, most of your language makes no sense at all. >> >> And you are an idiot jesuit. > > See, now we have proof of the resurrection. Perrti Lounesto is back from the dead. You do not understand the Galilean transformation equations because they describe relativity without a length contraction. > Well, since length contraction has been observed (Google it), that would be bad news for the Galilean transformations. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dad953cc-2724-454c-92a1-f27f2a7e3fb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426074 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 lipca 2017 17:56:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 7/24/17 6:51 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 2:22:05 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >> Robert Winn, idiot jesuit, wrote: > >>> Well, scientists are misinterpreting the equations by saying > >>> they are transformation equations. > >> > >> Quite the other way around, Mr Winn. You are misinterpreting almost > >> every equations you've been in contact with. > >> > >>> They are really just equations that show how long it takes light > >>> to travel from one place to another > >> > >> You confuse transformation equations with propagation equation, you've > >> always did. > >> > >> You should consider (but you won't as you are an stubborn imbecile), > >> that Relativity is not only about events concerning light, but about ALL > >> kind of events. Both theoretically (equations) and practically > >> (experiments) > >> > >>> according to the interpretation scientists > >>> have that light always travels at 186,000 miles per second. > >> > >> Complete meaningless gibberish, Mr Winn, "interpretation ... that > >> light always travels at ..." is either a hypothesis or a experimental > >> fact. In no way it may be an "interpretation". You do have deep > >> cognitive disabilities, most of your language makes no sense at all. > >> > >> And you are an idiot jesuit. > > > > See, now we have proof of the resurrection. Perrti Lounesto is back from the dead. You do not understand the Galilean transformation equations because they describe relativity without a length contraction. > > > > Well, since length contraction has been observed (Google it), that would > be bad news for the Galilean transformations. Odd, poor idiot, length contraction wouldn't harm GT even if the |observation" you mention wasn't a pure imagination of some brainwashed fanatics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 09:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ol5vdm$1mmq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425945 |
On 24/07/17 13:43, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:20:56 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>> doing. >> >> Einstein's 'different rates of time' follow from his P2, the >> assumption that a spherical light pulse is spherical in all frames. >> All you are doing is showing the consistency of SR's predictions >> with its postulates. >> > Well, scientists are misinterpreting the equations by saying they are > transformation equations. They are really just equations that show > how long it takes light to travel from one place to another according > to the interpretation scientists have that light always travels at > 186,000 miles per second. That is correct. It all follows directly from the bogus and certainly untested P2...and the whole of modern physics has been taken for a debilitating ride along the road to nowhere..... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 16:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <etivieFtg13U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #425828 |
On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 10:30:18 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 21/07/2017 10:34 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:37:54 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 21/07/2017 2:04 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>>>> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track? >>>>> If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train. >>>>> The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor. >>>>> No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The the distance between the marks is the length of the train in the >>>> frame of the track, which is less than the proper length of the train. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> No, the train has the same length in both frames of reference. >>> >> >> >> Well, if you choose to ignore a century of research, and instead just >> assume a result that suits your preconceptions about how things should >> be, then you can conclude anything. >> >> You'll still be wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation equations were thrown into the trash. Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that requirement. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a6308d4-3f4b-4713-9b82-ecb8dc46072c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425886 |
On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 11:55:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 10:30:18 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 21/07/2017 10:34 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:37:54 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 21/07/2017 2:04 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:50:35 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > >>>>>> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/ROS.html > >>>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> The way I did away with Relativity of Simultaneity took place in some letters I exchanged with a university professor before there were personal computers. I posed the following problem for him. > >>>>> > >>>>> Einstein describes a train and two lightning bolts, which as I understood it, took place simultaneously in the frame of reference of the railroad track at equal distances from an observer by the railroad track. I added one other element to Einstein's description: The two bolts of lightning strike the extreme front and rear of the train, leaving marks on the railroad track. So, I asked the professor, how far apart are the two marks on the railroad track? > >>>>> If the observer by the track takes a tape measure and measures the distance between the two marks, how does that distance compare with the length of the train. > >>>>> The two marks will be closer together than the length of the train, replied the professor. > >>>>> No, sorry, scientists, we are talking about reality here. The two marks on the track will be the length of the train apart. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The the distance between the marks is the length of the train in the > >>>> frame of the track, which is less than the proper length of the train. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> No, the train has the same length in both frames of reference. > >>> > >> > >> > >> Well, if you choose to ignore a century of research, and instead just > >> assume a result that suits your preconceptions about how things should > >> be, then you can conclude anything. > >> > >> You'll still be wrong. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation equations were thrown into the trash. > > Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are > to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that > requirement. > > Sylvia. Two sets of Galilean transformations result in the exact same velocities that Einstein obtained from the Lorentz equations. What we are doing is comparing two different concepts of time. First we have Galilean time, which was based on the time of rotation of the earth. Galileo spent his last years convicted of heresy and under house arrest for saying that the earth was rotating on its axis. Eventually, scientists admitted that Galileo was right. So Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity with the assumption that all correctly working clocks in the universe would agree with one another. This idea was called absolute time. The knowledge scientists have today that correctly working clocks vary in rate according to conditions of motion and gravitation does not falsify Newton's idea of absolute time. It just means that if a clock does not agree with whatever Newton is using as a standard of time, then the time of that clock would have to be converted to Newton's standard before using it in the Galilean transformation equations the way Newton was doing. Otherwise, whoever was using the equations would end up with a length contraction in one frame of reference or another. The concept of time being used today is called atomic or scientific time and is based on the idea that cesium atoms never vary in their rate of transitions, and therefore a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom is equal to a second. But then scientists tell us that a cesium clock in motion is slower than a cesium clock at rest, and a cesium clock under less gravitation is faster than a cesium clock under greater gravitation. Einstein was using scientific time in his idea that the laws of physics would be the same in all inertial frames. The laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames in Galilean time. They are only approximately the same with scientific time. For example, scientists tell us that a clock in a GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth. That means that the law of gravitation is different in the frame of reference of the satellite than the frame of reference of the earth. The satellite is falling faster toward earth to maintain its orbit in the frame of reference of the satellite. But, you say, these differences are not enough to matter. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames because scientists say they are. No, they aren't. I just proved that they aren't. Not with Galileo's equations, and not with Einstein's equations. They may be closer to being the same with Einstein's equations, but there are still differences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web