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 23 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 28 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 17:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu5g4tF6oikU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426590 |
On 30/07/2017 4:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, >>> Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a university professor years ago. There is no contradiction. What you people in science are doing is using two different rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation equations. >> What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length >> contraction. >> >> Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've described it? >> It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land simultaneously for one >> observer, they cannot possibly land simultaneously for the other, so the >> two observers cannot possibly see the same outcome. No amount of >> fudging with the definition of the second or hand waving about length >> contraction will address that. >> >> The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your claimed >> expertise, you're blind to it. >> >> Sylvia. > > The two observers cannot possibly see anything but the same outcome. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S no matter which observer is measuring the times of the clocks. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. If two events are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they are simultaneous in the other. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. Did I mention that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations to describe relativity? > Your proposition makes no sense - how are you to decide which is S and which is S'? Does your arbitrary choice somehow manage to have a real effect on the clocks? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <180399e0-360b-4542-8daa-7dd0cf069d87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426591 |
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:28:33 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 30/07/2017 4:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, > >>> Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a university professor years ago. There is no contradiction. What you people in science are doing is using two different rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation equations. > >> What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length > >> contraction. > >> > >> Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've described it? > >> It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land simultaneously for one > >> observer, they cannot possibly land simultaneously for the other, so the > >> two observers cannot possibly see the same outcome. No amount of > >> fudging with the definition of the second or hand waving about length > >> contraction will address that. > >> > >> The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your claimed > >> expertise, you're blind to it. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The two observers cannot possibly see anything but the same outcome. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S no matter which observer is measuring the times of the clocks. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. If two events are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they are simultaneous in the other. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. Did I mention that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations to describe relativity? > > > > Your proposition makes no sense - how are you to decide which is S and > which is S'? Does your arbitrary choice somehow manage to have a real > effect on the clocks? > > Sylvia. Well, for purposes of this discussion, I said that S' was the frame of reference with the slower clock. Einstein was the first one to make that stipulation. Now a scientist such as yourself would immediately argue, but from S', the clock in S is slower. That is not what the Galilean transformation equations show. In the Galilean transformation equations, the slow clock is where it was originally said to be, in S'. So go ahead and show your proof that the Galilean transformation equations are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 11:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu7etmFko2rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426618 |
On 31/07/2017 12:00 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:28:33 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 30/07/2017 4:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, >>>>> Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a >>>>> university professor years ago. There is no contradiction. >>>>> What you people in science are doing is using two different >>>>> rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation >>>>> equations. >>>> What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length >>>> contraction. >>>> >>>> Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've >>>> described it? It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land >>>> simultaneously for one observer, they cannot possibly land >>>> simultaneously for the other, so the two observers cannot >>>> possibly see the same outcome. No amount of fudging with the >>>> definition of the second or hand waving about length >>>> contraction will address that. >>>> >>>> The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your >>>> claimed expertise, you're blind to it. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The two observers cannot possibly see anything but the same >>> outcome. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S no matter >>> which observer is measuring the times of the clocks. That is >>> what the Galilean transformation equations show. If two events >>> are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they are simultaneous >>> in the other. That is what the Galilean transformation equations >>> show. Did I mention that the Galilean transformation equations >>> are the correct equations to describe relativity? >>> >> >> Your proposition makes no sense - how are you to decide which is S >> and which is S'? Does your arbitrary choice somehow manage to have >> a real effect on the clocks? >> >> Sylvia. > > Well, for purposes of this discussion, I said that S' was the frame > of reference with the slower clock. Einstein was the first one to > make that stipulation. Now a scientist such as yourself would > immediately argue, but from S', the clock in S is slower. That is > not what the Galilean transformation equations show. In the Galilean > transformation equations, the slow clock is where it was originally > said to be, in S'. So go ahead and show your proof that the Galilean > transformation equations are wrong. > If we had two trains running in opposite directions, at the same speed, relative to our initial observer (in S). Let them be S' and S''. So the clocks in S' and S'' have to be running at the same slower rate. So now let them measure the speed of a ray of light running from top to bottom and back again in S'. They have to conclude that it takes the same time, but in S'' the ray travels a larger distance. Thus they reach different conclusions about the speed of the ray. This is inconsistent with the experimental results that say the speed of a ray of light is the same for all observers. The problem with your theory is that it gives the wrong answers. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 21:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <808b8422-8ad1-4cf5-800b-ada6adefe73c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426653 |
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 6:19:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/07/2017 12:00 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:28:33 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 30/07/2017 4:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>> Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a
> >>>>> university professor years ago. There is no contradiction.
> >>>>> What you people in science are doing is using two different
> >>>>> rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation
> >>>>> equations.
> >>>> What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length
> >>>> contraction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've
> >>>> described it? It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land
> >>>> simultaneously for one observer, they cannot possibly land
> >>>> simultaneously for the other, so the two observers cannot
> >>>> possibly see the same outcome. No amount of fudging with the
> >>>> definition of the second or hand waving about length
> >>>> contraction will address that.
> >>>>
> >>>> The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your
> >>>> claimed expertise, you're blind to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> The two observers cannot possibly see anything but the same
> >>> outcome. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S no matter
> >>> which observer is measuring the times of the clocks. That is
> >>> what the Galilean transformation equations show. If two events
> >>> are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they are simultaneous
> >>> in the other. That is what the Galilean transformation equations
> >>> show. Did I mention that the Galilean transformation equations
> >>> are the correct equations to describe relativity?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Your proposition makes no sense - how are you to decide which is S
> >> and which is S'? Does your arbitrary choice somehow manage to have
> >> a real effect on the clocks?
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Well, for purposes of this discussion, I said that S' was the frame
> > of reference with the slower clock. Einstein was the first one to
> > make that stipulation. Now a scientist such as yourself would
> > immediately argue, but from S', the clock in S is slower. That is
> > not what the Galilean transformation equations show. In the Galilean
> > transformation equations, the slow clock is where it was originally
> > said to be, in S'. So go ahead and show your proof that the Galilean
> > transformation equations are wrong.
> >
>
> If we had two trains running in opposite directions, at the same speed,
> relative to our initial observer (in S). Let them be S' and S''. So the
> clocks in S' and S'' have to be running at the same slower rate.
>
> So now let them measure the speed of a ray of light running from top to
> bottom and back again in S'. They have to conclude that it takes the
> same time, but in S'' the ray travels a larger distance. Thus they reach
> different conclusions about the speed of the ray. This is inconsistent
> with the experimental results that say the speed of a ray of light is
> the same for all observers.
>
> The problem with your theory is that it gives the wrong answers.
>
> Sylvia.
Well, I would point out something to you. Here is the part of the Lorentz equation for time that converts the speed of light to c in either direction.
(t-vx/c^2)
The problem you have is that for light going one direction a clock is slower in S' and for light going in the opposite direction, a clock is slower in S, as scientists are fond of stating. The answer to this mystery is that what is meant by this expression is not relativity at all, but the time it takes for light to travel a distance of x. For example, if light is traveling in the +x direction, this expression makes t' a shorter time than t, but if light is emitted in the -x direction, it makes t' a longer time than t, meaning that a clock counting the time of that light is faster than a clock in S. So the Lorentz equations, with the interpretation that scientists give them, requires both a faster and slower clock in S' in order to account for all light emitted there.
Now here is what I think. I think that scientists can only measure whether light is traveling at c in both frames of reference. But suppose we have a faster clock in S', as Hafele and Keating discovered in their experiment when they flew in a plane going the opposite direction. If you run the Michelson-Morley experiment under those conditions, you still get c as the speed of light in both frames of reference, and the frames of reference are completely reversed from the way Einstein explained them with the Lorentz equations. So when we find a scientists willing to discuss this phenomenon, perhaps we can begin to make some progress in discussing their idea of relativity. But so far there has been no such scientist. Maybe you are the one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 15:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu7tqdFno6pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426666 |
On 31/07/2017 2:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 6:19:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 31/07/2017 12:00 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:28:33 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 30/07/2017 4:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>> Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a >>>>>>> university professor years ago. There is no contradiction. >>>>>>> What you people in science are doing is using two different >>>>>>> rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation >>>>>>> equations. >>>>>> What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length >>>>>> contraction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've >>>>>> described it? It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land >>>>>> simultaneously for one observer, they cannot possibly land >>>>>> simultaneously for the other, so the two observers cannot >>>>>> possibly see the same outcome. No amount of fudging with the >>>>>> definition of the second or hand waving about length >>>>>> contraction will address that. >>>>>> >>>>>> The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your >>>>>> claimed expertise, you're blind to it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> The two observers cannot possibly see anything but the same >>>>> outcome. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S no matter >>>>> which observer is measuring the times of the clocks. That is >>>>> what the Galilean transformation equations show. If two events >>>>> are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they are simultaneous >>>>> in the other. That is what the Galilean transformation equations >>>>> show. Did I mention that the Galilean transformation equations >>>>> are the correct equations to describe relativity? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your proposition makes no sense - how are you to decide which is S >>>> and which is S'? Does your arbitrary choice somehow manage to have >>>> a real effect on the clocks? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Well, for purposes of this discussion, I said that S' was the frame >>> of reference with the slower clock. Einstein was the first one to >>> make that stipulation. Now a scientist such as yourself would >>> immediately argue, but from S', the clock in S is slower. That is >>> not what the Galilean transformation equations show. In the Galilean >>> transformation equations, the slow clock is where it was originally >>> said to be, in S'. So go ahead and show your proof that the Galilean >>> transformation equations are wrong. >>> >> >> If we had two trains running in opposite directions, at the same speed, >> relative to our initial observer (in S). Let them be S' and S''. So the >> clocks in S' and S'' have to be running at the same slower rate. >> >> So now let them measure the speed of a ray of light running from top to >> bottom and back again in S'. They have to conclude that it takes the >> same time, but in S'' the ray travels a larger distance. Thus they reach >> different conclusions about the speed of the ray. This is inconsistent >> with the experimental results that say the speed of a ray of light is >> the same for all observers. >> >> The problem with your theory is that it gives the wrong answers. >> >> Sylvia. > > Well, I would point out something to you. Here is the part of the Lorentz equation for time that converts the speed of light to c in either direction. > > (t-vx/c^2) > > The problem you have is that for light going one direction a clock is slower in S' and for light going in the opposite direction, a clock is slower in S, as scientists are fond of stating. I don't think anyone knowledgeable about special relativity has ever said that. There has never been a suggestion that the rate at which clocks run depends on the direction that some light is going. It's an absurd proposition - how could a clock that uses a balance wheel to measure time have any dependence on some arbitrary light beam? The reality is that an observer in S finds that the clock in S' runs slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' finds that a clock in S runs slower than a clock in S'. The situation is completely symmetrical. > The answer to this mystery is that what is meant by this expression is not relativity at all, but the time it takes for light to travel a distance of x. For example, if light is traveling in the +x direction, this expression makes t' a shorter time than t, but if light is emitted in the -x direction, it makes t' a longer time than t, meaning that a clock counting the time of that light is faster than a clock in S. So the Lorentz equations, with the interpretation that scientists give them, requires both a faster and slower clock in S' in order to account for all light emitted there. The Lorentz transformation just provides the rule for converting a set of coordinates (including time) in one frame into a different frame. If I determine that some event occurs, I can take the coordinates of that event in my frame and use the Lorentz transformation to determine the coordinates of the event in your frame. In some situations, I may construe this as meaning that your clock runs more slowly than my clock, but that's really beside the point, and is certainly not a core element of special relativity. > Now here is what I think. I think that scientists can only measure whether light is traveling at c in both frames of reference. I don't know what you mean by that. I can always measure the speed of light in my frame, and you can always measure the speed of light in your frame. In both cases, we get the same number - c, and we do so even if we contrive to measure the speed of the same ray of light. > But suppose we have a faster clock in S', as Hafele and Keating discovered in their experiment when they flew in a plane going the opposite direction. If you run the Michelson-Morley experiment under those conditions, you still get c as the speed of light in both frames of reference, and the frames of reference are completely reversed from the way Einstein explained them with the Lorentz equations. So when we find a scientists willing to discuss this phenomenon, perhaps we can begin to make some progress in discussing their idea of relativity. But so far there has been no such scientist. Maybe you are the one. I'm not the one. I'm at something of a loss to understand why you're willing to entertain the idea of clocks running at different rates (to the extent that they can be said to do so), but not willing to accept the quite elegant formulation provided by the Lorentz transformation, when it does the job perfectly well (i.e. gives the correct results), and does it in a way that leaves the laws of physics the same in all inertial frame, does not require an absolute velocity, does not require an absolute origin, and does not require an absolute orientation. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 04:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b7d7aa5-cf44-43fa-ba1b-30be0103fc8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426670 |
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 10:34:09 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/07/2017 2:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 6:19:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 31/07/2017 12:00 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:28:33 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 30/07/2017 4:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>>>> Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a
> >>>>>>> university professor years ago. There is no contradiction.
> >>>>>>> What you people in science are doing is using two different
> >>>>>>> rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation
> >>>>>>> equations.
> >>>>>> What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length
> >>>>>> contraction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've
> >>>>>> described it? It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land
> >>>>>> simultaneously for one observer, they cannot possibly land
> >>>>>> simultaneously for the other, so the two observers cannot
> >>>>>> possibly see the same outcome. No amount of fudging with the
> >>>>>> definition of the second or hand waving about length
> >>>>>> contraction will address that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your
> >>>>>> claimed expertise, you're blind to it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The two observers cannot possibly see anything but the same
> >>>>> outcome. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S no matter
> >>>>> which observer is measuring the times of the clocks. That is
> >>>>> what the Galilean transformation equations show. If two events
> >>>>> are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they are simultaneous
> >>>>> in the other. That is what the Galilean transformation equations
> >>>>> show. Did I mention that the Galilean transformation equations
> >>>>> are the correct equations to describe relativity?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Your proposition makes no sense - how are you to decide which is S
> >>>> and which is S'? Does your arbitrary choice somehow manage to have
> >>>> a real effect on the clocks?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Well, for purposes of this discussion, I said that S' was the frame
> >>> of reference with the slower clock. Einstein was the first one to
> >>> make that stipulation. Now a scientist such as yourself would
> >>> immediately argue, but from S', the clock in S is slower. That is
> >>> not what the Galilean transformation equations show. In the Galilean
> >>> transformation equations, the slow clock is where it was originally
> >>> said to be, in S'. So go ahead and show your proof that the Galilean
> >>> transformation equations are wrong.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If we had two trains running in opposite directions, at the same speed,
> >> relative to our initial observer (in S). Let them be S' and S''. So the
> >> clocks in S' and S'' have to be running at the same slower rate.
> >>
> >> So now let them measure the speed of a ray of light running from top to
> >> bottom and back again in S'. They have to conclude that it takes the
> >> same time, but in S'' the ray travels a larger distance. Thus they reach
> >> different conclusions about the speed of the ray. This is inconsistent
> >> with the experimental results that say the speed of a ray of light is
> >> the same for all observers.
> >>
> >> The problem with your theory is that it gives the wrong answers.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Well, I would point out something to you. Here is the part of the Lorentz equation for time that converts the speed of light to c in either direction.
> >
> > (t-vx/c^2)
> >
> > The problem you have is that for light going one direction a clock is slower in S' and for light going in the opposite direction, a clock is slower in S, as scientists are fond of stating.
>
> I don't think anyone knowledgeable about special relativity has ever
> said that. There has never been a suggestion that the rate at which
> clocks run depends on the direction that some light is going. It's an
> absurd proposition - how could a clock that uses a balance wheel to
> measure time have any dependence on some arbitrary light beam?
>
> The reality is that an observer in S finds that the clock in S' runs
> slower than a clock in S, and an observer in S' finds that a clock in S
> runs slower than a clock in S'. The situation is completely symmetrical.
>
> > The answer to this mystery is that what is meant by this expression is not relativity at all, but the time it takes for light to travel a distance of x. For example, if light is traveling in the +x direction, this expression makes t' a shorter time than t, but if light is emitted in the -x direction, it makes t' a longer time than t, meaning that a clock counting the time of that light is faster than a clock in S. So the Lorentz equations, with the interpretation that scientists give them, requires both a faster and slower clock in S' in order to account for all light emitted there.
>
> The Lorentz transformation just provides the rule for converting a set
> of coordinates (including time) in one frame into a different frame. If
> I determine that some event occurs, I can take the coordinates of that
> event in my frame and use the Lorentz transformation to determine the
> coordinates of the event in your frame. In some situations, I may
> construe this as meaning that your clock runs more slowly than my clock,
> but that's really beside the point, and is certainly not a core element
> of special relativity.
>
> > Now here is what I think. I think that scientists can only measure whether light is traveling at c in both frames of reference.
>
> I don't know what you mean by that. I can always measure the speed of
> light in my frame, and you can always measure the speed of light in your
> frame. In both cases, we get the same number - c, and we do so even if
> we contrive to measure the speed of the same ray of light.
>
> > But suppose we have a faster clock in S', as Hafele and Keating discovered in their experiment when they flew in a plane going the opposite direction. If you run the Michelson-Morley experiment under those conditions, you still get c as the speed of light in both frames of reference, and the frames of reference are completely reversed from the way Einstein explained them with the Lorentz equations. So when we find a scientists willing to discuss this phenomenon, perhaps we can begin to make some progress in discussing their idea of relativity. But so far there has been no such scientist. Maybe you are the one.
>
> I'm not the one. I'm at something of a loss to understand why you're
> willing to entertain the idea of clocks running at different rates (to
> the extent that they can be said to do so), but not willing to accept
> the quite elegant formulation provided by the Lorentz transformation,
> when it does the job perfectly well (i.e. gives the correct results),
> and does it in a way that leaves the laws of physics the same in all
> inertial frame, does not require an absolute velocity, does not require
> an absolute origin, and does not require an absolute orientation.
>
> Sylvia.
Elegance means nothing to me. In the beginning, I set out to determine what scientists were doing wrong. When I discovered what it was, I also discovered that there were no scientists willing to discuss it. As you said, you are not the one.
So let me explain clocks with different rates to you. Such clocks do exist. I know this from experience. I walked over to Walgreen's drug store and purchased an alarm clock because I needed to get up early to go to work at a steel fabrication company I had obtained employment with when the economy failed. When I got home, I discovered that the clock I had purchased lost ten minutes every day. I know this is a difficult concept. The clock was slower than the GPS clock on my computer. I still used the clock. I would set it ahead ten minutes every night before I went to bed when I set the alarm.
Now what may surprise you as a scientist is that the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate the time of a clock that loses ten minutes per day. Here is the correct way to show mathematically the time of a clock that has a different rate. First we will show the time of a correctly running clock in S and will designate the time of that clock as t.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Now we will show the time of the Walgreen's clock that lost ten minutes every day. We will call the time of that clock t2.
x' = x - (v2)(t2)
y' = y
z' = z
t2' = t2
I know how difficult this must seem to someone who believes in a length contraction. Now I will point something out. t2 is not really a different time than t. It is just counted by a slower clock. v2 is not really a different velocity than v. It is just timed by a slower clock. Now you are going to be upset that I said that because you have been taught that there is no absolute velocity. The thing you will object most to in this second set of Galilean transformation equations is the fact that vt=(v2)(t2) because that means there is no length contraction in either set of Galilean transformation equations.
So now what you need to do is to explain how Einstein's slower clock in S' is different from the Walgreen's clock I bought that lost ten minutes every day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 22:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu8l1qFt1b4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426677 |
On 31/07/2017 9:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > Elegance means nothing to me. In the beginning, I set out to > determine what scientists were doing wrong. When I discovered what > it was, I also discovered that there were no scientists willing to > discuss it. As you said, you are not the one. So let me explain > clocks with different rates to you. Such clocks do exist. I know > this from experience. I walked over to Walgreen's drug store and > purchased an alarm clock because I needed to get up early to go to > work at a steel fabrication company I had obtained employment with > when the economy failed. When I got home, I discovered that the > clock I had purchased lost ten minutes every day. I know this is a > difficult concept. The clock was slower than the GPS clock on my > computer. I still used the clock. I would set it ahead ten minutes > every night before I went to bed when I set the alarm. What you're talking about is a defective clock. All clocks rely in physical laws to measure time, but the precision of their implementation varies. For example a balance wheel and spring oscillate at a rate that is exactly determined by their physical properties, but the rate of oscillation will differ from the intended rate because of limitations in how precisely the parts can be manufactured. > Now what may > surprise you as a scientist is that the Galilean transformation > equations can accommodate the time of a clock that loses ten minutes > per day. Here is the correct way to show mathematically the time of > a clock that has a different rate. First we will show the time of a > correctly running clock in S and will designate the time of that > clock as t. > > x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t > > Now we will show the time of the Walgreen's clock that lost ten > minutes every day. We will call the time of that clock t2. > > > x' = x - (v2)(t2) y' = y z' = z t2' = t2 > > I know how difficult this must seem to someone who believes in a > length contraction. Now I will point something out. t2 is not > really a different time than t. It is just counted by a slower > clock. v2 is not really a different velocity than v. It is just > timed by a slower clock. Now you are going to be upset that I said > that because you have been taught that there is no absolute velocity. > The thing you will object most to in this second set of Galilean > transformation equations is the fact that vt=(v2)(t2) because that > means there is no length contraction in either set of Galilean > transformation equations. So now what you need to do is to explain > how Einstein's slower clock in S' is different from the Walgreen's > clock I bought that lost ten minutes every day. > Your approach is treating some clocks as if they run more slowly than other clocks, just as Walgreen's clock runs more slowly than a more accurate clock. What such an approach cannot handle is the situation where a clock in S' runs more slowly than a clock in S, as seen by someone in S, but that the same clock in S runs more slowly than the same clock in S' as seen by someone in S'. That symmetry is unavoidable if the speed of light is constant for all observers, as experimental evidence indicates. There is just no way you can write a Galilean transform that does that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 05:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79f4daa9-a79e-42a9-b8a1-e0f3f864de7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426681 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 31 lipca 2017 14:10:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > What you're talking about is a defective clock. So your guru did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d42b31d-3059-4ff1-b9b8-99f303a0b4d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426653 |
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 6:19:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/07/2017 12:00 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:28:33 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 30/07/2017 4:46 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, > >>>>> Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a > >>>>> university professor years ago. There is no contradiction. > >>>>> What you people in science are doing is using two different > >>>>> rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation > >>>>> equations. > >>>> What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length > >>>> contraction. > >>>> > >>>> Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've > >>>> described it? It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land > >>>> simultaneously for one observer, they cannot possibly land > >>>> simultaneously for the other, so the two observers cannot > >>>> possibly see the same outcome. No amount of fudging with the > >>>> definition of the second or hand waving about length > >>>> contraction will address that. > >>>> > >>>> The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your > >>>> claimed expertise, you're blind to it. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The two observers cannot possibly see anything but the same > >>> outcome. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S no matter > >>> which observer is measuring the times of the clocks. That is > >>> what the Galilean transformation equations show. If two events > >>> are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they are simultaneous > >>> in the other. That is what the Galilean transformation equations > >>> show. Did I mention that the Galilean transformation equations > >>> are the correct equations to describe relativity? > >>> > >> > >> Your proposition makes no sense - how are you to decide which is S > >> and which is S'? Does your arbitrary choice somehow manage to have > >> a real effect on the clocks? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Well, for purposes of this discussion, I said that S' was the frame > > of reference with the slower clock. Einstein was the first one to > > make that stipulation. Now a scientist such as yourself would > > immediately argue, but from S', the clock in S is slower. That is > > not what the Galilean transformation equations show. In the Galilean > > transformation equations, the slow clock is where it was originally > > said to be, in S'. So go ahead and show your proof that the Galilean > > transformation equations are wrong. > > > > If we had two trains running in opposite directions, at the same speed, > relative to our initial observer (in S). Let them be S' and S''. So the > clocks in S' and S'' have to be running at the same slower rate. > > So now let them measure the speed of a ray of light running from top to > bottom and back again in S'. They have to conclude that it takes the > same time, but in S'' the ray travels a larger distance. Thus they reach > different conclusions about the speed of the ray. This is inconsistent > with the experimental results that say the speed of a ray of light is > the same for all observers. > > The problem with your theory is that it gives the wrong answers. > > Sylvia. I don't have a theory. All I do is calculate relativity with the Galilean transformation equations, which are the correct equations for relativity. Now you and Einstein want to talk about light. So let's use your three frames of reference. Say there is an observer by the side of the track. The engines of the trains in S' and S" reach the observer by the track at t=0 in that frame of reference. So we will say that the observer by the track is at the origin of S. The fronts of the trains are the origins of S' and S". Light is emitted at the origins of the three frames of reference. Now if light travels at c in all three frames of reference, then in S, the light travels to ct and -ct on the x axis in a time of t. This would happen in S regardless of which frame of reference the source of light was in. If the source of light is at the origin of S, then the foregoing is obvious. If the source of light is at the origin of S' or S", we still have the same result because the first light emitted travels in S at a speed of c in that frame of reference, independent of the motion of either train. Relative to S, a light on the front of one of the trains is traveling at some velocity, but if the light is turned on exactly when the train reaches x=0, the first light emitted will travel exactly as if it was the first light emitted from a source of light that is turned on and remains at the origin of S. In either case, since the train is traveling slower than c, light emitted later than t=t'=t"=0 is going to be behind the first light emitted in any event. So what we end up with is a preferred frame of reference. Light expands out from the origin of S at a rate of ct in all directions making a light sphere with a radius of ct. If you want to know what the expression (t-vx/c^2) means, it describes this light sphere seen in S as observed from S' and S" with the times given for light from the origins of those frames of reference to reach a particular point on the light sphere around the origin of S. The light is not bending space. It is not contracting distances. It is just traveling at c in all three frames of reference. If that makes it difficult for scientists to define time, too bad. What do scientists want, for the lights to be turned off?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 15:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu7ukcFnsm9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426668 |
On 31/07/2017 2:50 PM, Robert Winn wrote: I've had to cut out your posting - something in there is making my news server thing I'm submitting a binary message. Sorry about that. I agree that this is what the observer in S sees, and that it doesn't depend on which train emitted the light. But what of the observers in S' and S''? Should they not also see a light sphere IN THEIR OWN FRAME centred on their own origin? If not, then what makes S so special? How does the light that's emitted from one of the trains know that it's supposed to form a sphere centred on the origin of S, and not the origin of the frame that train occupies? You can't choose some frame, designate it your preferred frame, and then expect the light to arrange its behaviour according to your preference. The Lorentz transformation applied to this scenario tells as that each observer does indeed see an expanding sphere centered on their own origin. It does so without raising any contradictions, and without requiring a preferred frame. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 04:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d120e88-0c39-4169-83c4-a19c6b39764d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426671 |
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 10:48:00 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/07/2017 2:50 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > I've had to cut out your posting - something in there is making my news > server thing I'm submitting a binary message. Sorry about that. > > I agree that this is what the observer in S sees, and that it doesn't > depend on which train emitted the light. > > But what of the observers in S' and S''? Should they not also see a > light sphere IN THEIR OWN FRAME centred on their own origin? If not, > then what makes S so special? How does the light that's emitted from one > of the trains know that it's supposed to form a sphere centred on the > origin of S, and not the origin of the frame that train occupies? > > You can't choose some frame, designate it your preferred frame, and then > expect the light to arrange its behaviour according to your preference. > > The Lorentz transformation applied to this scenario tells as that each > observer does indeed see an expanding sphere centered on their own > origin. It does so without raising any contradictions, and without > requiring a preferred frame. > > Sylvia. Well, now you have discovered a mystery. If the light is indeed propagating as a sphere from the origin of S' or S", then what the term (t-vx/c^2) gives us is not relativity, as scientists claim, but what an observer in S' or S" would see, which is not the same as what an observer in S would see. An observer in S' or S" sees the light propagating as a sphere from the point where it was emitted in his frame of reference according to the time of a correctly working clock in that frame of reference. Now scientists have already agreed that a clock in S' or S" can have a different rate than a clock in S. They say they have shown that by experiment. So like the Walgreen's slower clock, the clock in S' or S" will show different velocities than the clock in S. But scientists tell us that one velocity will be the same according to the times of the clocks. The speed of light is always 186,000 miles per second. So observers in each frame of reference all see something different if scientists are right. Now scientists want to bend space, contract lengths, etc., to make the light appear in the same places in all three frames of reference. I just say I have no explanation for what the light is doing or what the observers are seeing. But with regard to what scientists say is happening, I am working the mathematics correctly, and have the relativity correct. That means that distances are the same in all three sets of Galilean transformation equations, as the Galilean transformation equations plainly show.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 22:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu8me4FtbtlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426678 |
On 31/07/2017 9:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > Now scientists have already agreed that a clock in S' or S" can have a different rate than a clock in S. They say they have shown that by experiment. I've cut out everything else here because I think it's worth just focusing on that statement. The modern view of relativity is that it does not describe anything happening to moving clocks. The clock in S' is observed to run slow in S, but that's not because the clock in S' actually is running slow, but is a consequence projecting the space-time of S' onto the space-time of S. The shadow cast by a rod is a projection of the rod, and its length will usually differ from that of the rod. This is not taken to mean that anything's happened to the rod. So despite how it appears in S, the clock in S' is doing what it always did (if it's a good clock), which is to indicate the passage of one second every time one second passes in S'. This also allows the required symmetry without creating any contradiction. In S, the clock in S' *appears* to run more slowly than the clock in S. In S', the clock in S *appears* to run more slowly than the clock in S'. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9bfc9ec-5cb4-49c8-9f51-a74695b2ae9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426682 |
On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:34:16 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/07/2017 9:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > Now scientists have already agreed that a clock in S' or S" can have a different rate than a clock in S. They say they have shown that by experiment. > > I've cut out everything else here because I think it's worth just > focusing on that statement. > > The modern view of relativity is that it does not describe anything > happening to moving clocks. The clock in S' is observed to run slow in > S, but that's not because the clock in S' actually is running slow, but > is a consequence projecting the space-time of S' onto the space-time of > S. The shadow cast by a rod is a projection of the rod, and its length > will usually differ from that of the rod. This is not taken to mean that > anything's happened to the rod. > > So despite how it appears in S, the clock in S' is doing what it always > did (if it's a good clock), which is to indicate the passage of one > second every time one second passes in S'. > > This also allows the required symmetry without creating any > contradiction. In S, the clock in S' *appears* to run more slowly than > the clock in S. In S', the clock in S *appears* to run more slowly than > the clock in S'. > > Sylvia. Well, scientists believe in shadows, reflections, etc. I was searching for something more definite. For instance, we could ask, when the clock on earth says six o clock, what does the clock on the airplane say? Do you Einstein disciples have an answer to a question like that? But the Galilean transformation equations do have an answer. All we need to know is how much faster or slower the clock on the airplane is, and we can calculate the time of that clock when the clock on earth says six o clock. See the advantage of being able to do that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 10:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eua1rcF8kdjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426738 |
On 1/08/2017 8:49 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:34:16 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 31/07/2017 9:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> Now scientists have already agreed that a clock in S' or S" can have a different rate than a clock in S. They say they have shown that by experiment. >> >> I've cut out everything else here because I think it's worth just >> focusing on that statement. >> >> The modern view of relativity is that it does not describe anything >> happening to moving clocks. The clock in S' is observed to run slow in >> S, but that's not because the clock in S' actually is running slow, but >> is a consequence projecting the space-time of S' onto the space-time of >> S. The shadow cast by a rod is a projection of the rod, and its length >> will usually differ from that of the rod. This is not taken to mean that >> anything's happened to the rod. >> >> So despite how it appears in S, the clock in S' is doing what it always >> did (if it's a good clock), which is to indicate the passage of one >> second every time one second passes in S'. >> >> This also allows the required symmetry without creating any >> contradiction. In S, the clock in S' *appears* to run more slowly than >> the clock in S. In S', the clock in S *appears* to run more slowly than >> the clock in S'. >> >> Sylvia. > > Well, scientists believe in shadows, reflections, etc. I was searching for something more definite. For instance, we could ask, when the clock on earth says six o clock, what does the clock on the airplane say? > Do you Einstein disciples have an answer to a question like that? > But the Galilean transformation equations do have an answer. All we need to know is how much faster or slower the clock on the airplane is, and we can calculate the time of that clock when the clock on earth says six o clock. > See the advantage of being able to do that? > It would be even simpler if all clocks just showed the same time. But they don't, and we have to work with the universe we live in, not some universe that would be simpler. The Lorentz transform gives answers that match experiments. Galilean transforms do not. I'm at a loss to understand why you're so convinced, indeed determined, that the Lorentz transform is wrong when there's no evidence at all to support your position. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 20:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eaf54923-c59c-4b4b-bf55-f9a20239b0e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426753 |
On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/08/2017 8:49 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:34:16 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 31/07/2017 9:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> Now scientists have already agreed that a clock in S' or S" can have a different rate than a clock in S. They say they have shown that by experiment. > >> > >> I've cut out everything else here because I think it's worth just > >> focusing on that statement. > >> > >> The modern view of relativity is that it does not describe anything > >> happening to moving clocks. The clock in S' is observed to run slow in > >> S, but that's not because the clock in S' actually is running slow, but > >> is a consequence projecting the space-time of S' onto the space-time of > >> S. The shadow cast by a rod is a projection of the rod, and its length > >> will usually differ from that of the rod. This is not taken to mean that > >> anything's happened to the rod. > >> > >> So despite how it appears in S, the clock in S' is doing what it always > >> did (if it's a good clock), which is to indicate the passage of one > >> second every time one second passes in S'. > >> > >> This also allows the required symmetry without creating any > >> contradiction. In S, the clock in S' *appears* to run more slowly than > >> the clock in S. In S', the clock in S *appears* to run more slowly than > >> the clock in S'. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Well, scientists believe in shadows, reflections, etc. I was searching for something more definite. For instance, we could ask, when the clock on earth says six o clock, what does the clock on the airplane say? > > Do you Einstein disciples have an answer to a question like that? > > But the Galilean transformation equations do have an answer. All we need to know is how much faster or slower the clock on the airplane is, and we can calculate the time of that clock when the clock on earth says six o clock. > > See the advantage of being able to do that? > > > > It would be even simpler if all clocks just showed the same time. > > But they don't, and we have to work with the universe we live in, not > some universe that would be simpler. > > The Lorentz transform gives answers that match experiments. Galilean > transforms do not. > > I'm at a loss to understand why you're so convinced, indeed determined, > that the Lorentz transform is wrong when there's no evidence at all to > support your position. > > Sylvia. What do you mean there is no evidence? Any grade school student knows that you do not use kilometers and miles in the same equation. So why do you think it is different with time? You do not use Mars days and earth days in the same equation. But scientists tell us that a second of time of a slower clock and a second of time of a faster clock are the same thing. So, obviously, we are stopped from progressing in scientific thought by false propaganda. Whatever ideas you use to justify your departure from axioms of junior high algebra do not really interest me. I follow the math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 14:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <euad0hFaq84U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426769 |
On 1/08/2017 1:34 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 1/08/2017 8:49 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:34:16 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 31/07/2017 9:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> Now scientists have already agreed that a clock in S' or S" >>>>> can have a different rate than a clock in S. They say they >>>>> have shown that by experiment. >>>> >>>> I've cut out everything else here because I think it's worth >>>> just focusing on that statement. >>>> >>>> The modern view of relativity is that it does not describe >>>> anything happening to moving clocks. The clock in S' is >>>> observed to run slow in S, but that's not because the clock in >>>> S' actually is running slow, but is a consequence projecting >>>> the space-time of S' onto the space-time of S. The shadow cast >>>> by a rod is a projection of the rod, and its length will >>>> usually differ from that of the rod. This is not taken to mean >>>> that anything's happened to the rod. >>>> >>>> So despite how it appears in S, the clock in S' is doing what >>>> it always did (if it's a good clock), which is to indicate the >>>> passage of one second every time one second passes in S'. >>>> >>>> This also allows the required symmetry without creating any >>>> contradiction. In S, the clock in S' *appears* to run more >>>> slowly than the clock in S. In S', the clock in S *appears* to >>>> run more slowly than the clock in S'. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Well, scientists believe in shadows, reflections, etc. I was >>> searching for something more definite. For instance, we could >>> ask, when the clock on earth says six o clock, what does the >>> clock on the airplane say? Do you Einstein disciples have an >>> answer to a question like that? But the Galilean transformation >>> equations do have an answer. All we need to know is how much >>> faster or slower the clock on the airplane is, and we can >>> calculate the time of that clock when the clock on earth says >>> six o clock. See the advantage of being able to do that? >>> >> >> It would be even simpler if all clocks just showed the same time. >> >> But they don't, and we have to work with the universe we live in, >> not some universe that would be simpler. >> >> The Lorentz transform gives answers that match experiments. >> Galilean transforms do not. >> >> I'm at a loss to understand why you're so convinced, indeed >> determined, that the Lorentz transform is wrong when there's no >> evidence at all to support your position. >> >> Sylvia. > > What do you mean there is no evidence? Any grade school student > knows that you do not use kilometers and miles in the same equation. > So why do you think it is different with time? You do not use Mars > days and earth days in the same equation. But scientists tell us > that a second of time of a slower clock and a second of time of a > faster clock are the same thing. So, obviously, we are stopped from > progressing in scientific thought by false propaganda. Whatever > ideas you use to justify your departure from axioms of junior high > algebra do not really interest me. I follow the math. > The Lorentz transform does not mix units. When using it one must be consistent, and take all the coordinates from the same frame, and generate new coordinates in the same new frame. This statement "But scientists tell us that a second of time of a slower clock and a second of time of a faster clock are the same thing." is false. Scientists make no such claim. There is no departure from junior high-school algebra. If I take an ordinary accurate clock and an ordinary accurate metre rule, and measure the time and location of some events in my frame, and you do the same (for the same events) in your frame, then I can apply the Lorentz transform to my measurements, and calculate what your measurements are. The transform does this correctly and precisely. How can you argue that it is wrong? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 21:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6331fdcf-23ec-417b-b67d-b40f35926156@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426775 |
On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:05:42 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/08/2017 1:34 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 1/08/2017 8:49 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:34:16 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 31/07/2017 9:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> Now scientists have already agreed that a clock in S' or S" > >>>>> can have a different rate than a clock in S. They say they > >>>>> have shown that by experiment. > >>>> > >>>> I've cut out everything else here because I think it's worth > >>>> just focusing on that statement. > >>>> > >>>> The modern view of relativity is that it does not describe > >>>> anything happening to moving clocks. The clock in S' is > >>>> observed to run slow in S, but that's not because the clock in > >>>> S' actually is running slow, but is a consequence projecting > >>>> the space-time of S' onto the space-time of S. The shadow cast > >>>> by a rod is a projection of the rod, and its length will > >>>> usually differ from that of the rod. This is not taken to mean > >>>> that anything's happened to the rod. > >>>> > >>>> So despite how it appears in S, the clock in S' is doing what > >>>> it always did (if it's a good clock), which is to indicate the > >>>> passage of one second every time one second passes in S'. > >>>> > >>>> This also allows the required symmetry without creating any > >>>> contradiction. In S, the clock in S' *appears* to run more > >>>> slowly than the clock in S. In S', the clock in S *appears* to > >>>> run more slowly than the clock in S'. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Well, scientists believe in shadows, reflections, etc. I was > >>> searching for something more definite. For instance, we could > >>> ask, when the clock on earth says six o clock, what does the > >>> clock on the airplane say? Do you Einstein disciples have an > >>> answer to a question like that? But the Galilean transformation > >>> equations do have an answer. All we need to know is how much > >>> faster or slower the clock on the airplane is, and we can > >>> calculate the time of that clock when the clock on earth says > >>> six o clock. See the advantage of being able to do that? > >>> > >> > >> It would be even simpler if all clocks just showed the same time. > >> > >> But they don't, and we have to work with the universe we live in, > >> not some universe that would be simpler. > >> > >> The Lorentz transform gives answers that match experiments. > >> Galilean transforms do not. > >> > >> I'm at a loss to understand why you're so convinced, indeed > >> determined, that the Lorentz transform is wrong when there's no > >> evidence at all to support your position. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > What do you mean there is no evidence? Any grade school student > > knows that you do not use kilometers and miles in the same equation. > > So why do you think it is different with time? You do not use Mars > > days and earth days in the same equation. But scientists tell us > > that a second of time of a slower clock and a second of time of a > > faster clock are the same thing. So, obviously, we are stopped from > > progressing in scientific thought by false propaganda. Whatever > > ideas you use to justify your departure from axioms of junior high > > algebra do not really interest me. I follow the math. > > > > The Lorentz transform does not mix units. When using it one must be > consistent, and take all the coordinates from the same frame, and > generate new coordinates in the same new frame. > > This statement "But scientists tell us that a second of time of a slower > clock and a second of time of a faster clock are the same thing." is > false. Scientists make no such claim. > > There is no departure from junior high-school algebra. > > If I take an ordinary accurate clock and an ordinary accurate metre > rule, and measure the time and location of some events in my frame, and > you do the same (for the same events) in your frame, then I can apply > the Lorentz transform to my measurements, and calculate what your > measurements are. The transform does this correctly and precisely. How > can you argue that it is wrong? > > Sylvia. I don't argue at all. I just use the Galilean transformation equations because they are the correct equations for relativity. Now I have noticed one thing about scientists. They can make any experimental data fit the Lorentz equations combined with the equations of General Relativity because one offsets the other to obtain exactly what scientists are seeking to find. Except for one thing. A slower clock and a faster clock do not result in the same speed between frames of reference. There is no experiment showing that it does. A slower clock results in a faster velocity, and a faster clock results in a slower velocity, which is what the Galilean transformation equations show. Sorry, scientists, but you are using the wrong equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 14:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <euaf91Fb9biU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426777 |
On 1/08/2017 2:17 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >> If I take an ordinary accurate clock and an ordinary accurate >> metre rule, and measure the time and location of some events in my >> frame, and you do the same (for the same events) in your frame, >> then I can apply the Lorentz transform to my measurements, and >> calculate what your measurements are. The transform does this >> correctly and precisely. How can you argue that it is wrong? >> >> Sylvia. > > I don't argue at all. I just use the Galilean transformation > equations because they are the correct equations for relativity. Now > I have noticed one thing about scientists. They can make any > experimental data fit the Lorentz equations combined with the > equations of General Relativity because one offsets the other to > obtain exactly what scientists are seeking to find. Except for one > thing. A slower clock and a faster clock do not result in the same > speed between frames of reference. There is no experiment showing > that it does. A slower clock results in a faster velocity, and a > faster clock results in a slower velocity, which is what the Galilean > transformation equations show. Sorry, scientists, but you are using > the wrong equations. > You seem to be fixated on this notion of slower and faster clocks. If I go to the shop and buy some accurate clocks and metre rules, and then board the relativity express (and wait for it to accelerate to some relativistic speed), I'll feel just the same as I always did. The shape of the carriage will look unchanged. If I measure it using my metre rules, it will have have same length, width and height that it always did. I'll feel the need to sleep every time my clocks show an additional twenty four hours, and I'll need to sleep for a period that my clocks show as about eight hours. In short, there will be nothing to suggest to me that anything about my metre rules and clocks has changed. So, naturally, I'll take their readings at face value when I do experiments. Why would I do anything else? Someone who stayed at the railway station with similar clocks and metre rules will of course also find nothing to suggest that their clocks and metre rules have changed, and will also take their readings at face value when they do experiments. That seems entirely reasonable, does it not? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b56007f4-2590-4482-9826-79c75f567abe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426780 |
On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:44:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/08/2017 2:17 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > >> If I take an ordinary accurate clock and an ordinary accurate > >> metre rule, and measure the time and location of some events in my > >> frame, and you do the same (for the same events) in your frame, > >> then I can apply the Lorentz transform to my measurements, and > >> calculate what your measurements are. The transform does this > >> correctly and precisely. How can you argue that it is wrong? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I don't argue at all. I just use the Galilean transformation > > equations because they are the correct equations for relativity. Now > > I have noticed one thing about scientists. They can make any > > experimental data fit the Lorentz equations combined with the > > equations of General Relativity because one offsets the other to > > obtain exactly what scientists are seeking to find. Except for one > > thing. A slower clock and a faster clock do not result in the same > > speed between frames of reference. There is no experiment showing > > that it does. A slower clock results in a faster velocity, and a > > faster clock results in a slower velocity, which is what the Galilean > > transformation equations show. Sorry, scientists, but you are using > > the wrong equations. > > > > You seem to be fixated on this notion of slower and faster clocks. > > If I go to the shop and buy some accurate clocks and metre rules, and > then board the relativity express (and wait for it to accelerate to some > relativistic speed), I'll feel just the same as I always did. The shape > of the carriage will look unchanged. If I measure it using my metre > rules, it will have have same length, width and height that it always > did. I'll feel the need to sleep every time my clocks show an additional > twenty four hours, and I'll need to sleep for a period that my clocks > show as about eight hours. In short, there will be nothing to suggest to > me that anything about my metre rules and clocks has changed. So, > naturally, I'll take their readings at face value when I do experiments. > Why would I do anything else? > > Someone who stayed at the railway station with similar clocks and metre > rules will of course also find nothing to suggest that their clocks and > metre rules have changed, and will also take their readings at face > value when they do experiments. > > That seems entirely reasonable, does it not? > > Sylvia. Well, what does not seem reasonable to people who believe that distances contract? One thing seems unreasonable. It seems unreasonable that a slower clock would result in faster velocities and a faster clock would result in slower velocities. I understand all about scientific time. Scientists are saying, Either accept our definition of time, or we will force you to do it. The problem you have is the same one the court that tried Galileo had. The earth continues to rotate on its axis. You can say that two different intervals of time are both seconds, and everyone is required to accept your definition of a second, but a second still remains a fraction of the time it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis. If you have a greater or smaller amount of time based on transitions of a cesium atom, then you have a different kind of second, and you need to convert that amount of time to the second based on rotation of the earth before using it in the Galilean transformation equations. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c66cea89-c06e-4a51-bbc9-76a1cf886ba9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426780 |
On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:44:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/08/2017 2:17 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > >> If I take an ordinary accurate clock and an ordinary accurate > >> metre rule, and measure the time and location of some events in my > >> frame, and you do the same (for the same events) in your frame, > >> then I can apply the Lorentz transform to my measurements, and > >> calculate what your measurements are. The transform does this > >> correctly and precisely. How can you argue that it is wrong? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I don't argue at all. I just use the Galilean transformation > > equations because they are the correct equations for relativity. Now > > I have noticed one thing about scientists. They can make any > > experimental data fit the Lorentz equations combined with the > > equations of General Relativity because one offsets the other to > > obtain exactly what scientists are seeking to find. Except for one > > thing. A slower clock and a faster clock do not result in the same > > speed between frames of reference. There is no experiment showing > > that it does. A slower clock results in a faster velocity, and a > > faster clock results in a slower velocity, which is what the Galilean > > transformation equations show. Sorry, scientists, but you are using > > the wrong equations. > > > > You seem to be fixated on this notion of slower and faster clocks. > > If I go to the shop and buy some accurate clocks and metre rules, and > then board the relativity express (and wait for it to accelerate to some > relativistic speed), I'll feel just the same as I always did. The shape > of the carriage will look unchanged. If I measure it using my metre > rules, it will have have same length, width and height that it always > did. I'll feel the need to sleep every time my clocks show an additional > twenty four hours, and I'll need to sleep for a period that my clocks > show as about eight hours. In short, there will be nothing to suggest to > me that anything about my metre rules and clocks has changed. So, > naturally, I'll take their readings at face value when I do experiments. > Why would I do anything else? > > Someone who stayed at the railway station with similar clocks and metre > rules will of course also find nothing to suggest that their clocks and > metre rules have changed, and will also take their readings at face > value when they do experiments. > > That seems entirely reasonable, does it not? > > Sylvia. Well, I can tell you what is going to happen. If you define a second as a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, and then you have cesium atoms transitioning at different rates because of differences in motion, gravitation, etc., as scientists say they have in these experiments, then if you do not convert times to a common standard, you are going to end up with a length contraction. So scientists say, We have discovered a length contraction. It is beyond feeble minded. So then I post the correct equations, two sets of Galilean transformation equations, and all scientists unite in crying, Blasphemy, there is no length contraction. So it does not appear to me that this conversation is going to continue much longer. Thank you for sharing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web