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 25 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 03:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oljl0l$c03$7@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426570 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >That should be obvious.... That's what you always post, Ralph, when you write what you believe in but you know that you can't prove it scientifically. >What a lying confused hypocrite you are. Next you will be telling us >that GPS clocks WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL and muons in a ring WHICH ARE NOT >INERTIAL all obey Einstein's shitty theory. That's right, Ralph. That's why the GPS satellites need to use GR, not SR to analyze what happens with them, and why muons in a storage ring are an example of the travelling twin problem. Ralph, as you know, the travelling twin time difference (and muon decay time difference) happen specifically because both situations are not inertial, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 18:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <olk73b$1sll$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426583 |
On 30/07/17 13:49, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: > >> What a lying confused hypocrite you are. Next you will be telling us >> that GPS clocks WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL and muons in a ring WHICH ARE NOT >> INERTIAL all obey Einstein's shitty theory. > > That's right, Henry. That's why the GPS satellites need to use GR, not SR > to analyze what happens with them, and why muons in a storage ring are an > example of the travelling twin problem. Henry, as you know, the travelling > twin time difference (and muon decay time difference) happen specifically > because both situations are not inertial, Henry. Traveling twins age at the same rate no matter how they do it. There is no problem. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 14:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olne0l$q0j$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426594 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 30/07/17 13:49, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> What a lying confused hypocrite you are. Next you will be telling us >>> that GPS clocks WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL and muons in a ring WHICH ARE NOT >>> INERTIAL all obey Einstein's shitty theory. >> >> That's right, Ralph. That's why the GPS satellites need to use GR, not SR >> to analyze what happens with them, and why muons in a storage ring are an >> example of the travelling twin problem. Ralph, as you know, the travelling >> twin time difference (and muon decay time difference) happen specifically >> because both situations are not inertial, Ralph. >Traveling twins age at the same rate no matter how they do it. There is >no problem. No, Ralph. You can't come up with false statements that contradict SR, such as the twins aging at the same rate, and then claim this as evidence that SR is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 10:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eua215F8kdjU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426693 |
On 1/08/2017 12:14 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: > >> On 30/07/17 13:49, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: > >>> >>>> What a lying confused hypocrite you are. Next you will be telling us >>>> that GPS clocks WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL and muons in a ring WHICH ARE NOT >>>> INERTIAL all obey Einstein's shitty theory. >>> >>> That's right, Ralph. That's why the GPS satellites need to use GR, not SR >>> to analyze what happens with them, and why muons in a storage ring are an >>> example of the travelling twin problem. Ralph, as you know, the travelling >>> twin time difference (and muon decay time difference) happen specifically >>> because both situations are not inertial, Ralph. > >> Traveling twins age at the same rate no matter how they do it. There is >> no problem. > > No, Ralph. You can't come up with false statements that contradict SR, > such as the twins aging at the same rate, and then claim this as evidence > that SR is wrong. > It's a time honoured way of "invalidating" relativity. Make some assumption that is false in relativity, and then show that it leads to a contradiction, and blame the contradiction on relativity, not the assumption. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 10:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olkd45$5do$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426583 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > as you know, the travelling twin time difference (and muon decay time > difference) happen specifically because both situations are not > inertial, Ralph. What an idiot, spewing out such thing. Man, you have infinitely much to learn. You just waste your time in relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 02:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36d890d1-0b06-4405-bee4-fec214f03b89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426570 |
On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: > On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a > > ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings > > the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under > > gravity[*] I assume there is a third observer P at rest. As such there are three frames S, S' and S'' This is a very tricky example because in each of the frames S, S' and S'' the train, the observer and the ball have the same speed i.e. 0, +v and -v. > > Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective > > train floors simultaneously. Yes from the point of view of S. Not from the point of view of S' and S'' > > Problem is, that would have to be for each > > observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one > > frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the > > direction between the events. Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. Consider an observer P at rest on a platform near a track. Al of a sudden lightning strikes (hits) the track at equal distances twice left and right from the observer. This leaves two marks. The observer sees both hits simultaneous and observer P declares them as (are) two simultaneous events. At the same time when the lightning strikes, a train passes, going towards the right, with observer P' exactly at the same position as observer P. Observer P', going towards the right, observes the right hit before the left one i.e. observer P' does not see the two hits simultaneous. Observer P'', going towards the left, observes the opposite (left before the right) Now we modify this experiment. Place a light source between two mirrors. This source emits one flash, which will be reflected against the two mirrors (this are the two simultaneous events). The observer P (at rest) will observe both reflections at the same time. Now we perform the same experiment in each in two moving trains. Observer P' will claim that in his case the two events are simultaneous. Observer P'' will claim the same. Who is correct? P, P', P'' or P'''? > Simultaneity has nothing to do with light or what separated people might > 'see'. If the two balls were dropped simultaneously by means of a > mechanical system, the two events can be assumed to be simultaneous in > all frames, even though they wont appear to be because of information's > finite travel time. That should be obvious.... How important are the experiments discussed above using lightsignals when I want to understand the laws that describe the movement of the planets in the solar system or the stars in our galaxy. IMO not because these laws are not based on photons, but on forces, gravitational fields and gravitons. You need light to make your initial and final observations, but not inbetween. The best way to unravel these laws is to use only one reference frame. > What a lying confused hypocrite you are. Next you will be telling us > that GPS clocks WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL and muons in a ring WHICH ARE NOT > INERTIAL all obey Einstein's shitty theory. Science is an art which progresses in small steps with respect and regard for all participants. Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 22:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eudte9F4v11U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426880 |
On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: >> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >> >>> >>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a >>> ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings >>> the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under >>> gravity[*] > > I assume there is a third observer P at rest. > As such there are three frames S, S' and S'' > This is a very tricky example because in each of the frames S, S' and S'' > the train, the observer and the ball have the same speed i.e. 0, +v and -v. > >>> Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective >>> train floors simultaneously. > Yes from the point of view of S. Not from the point of view of S' and S'' >>> Problem is, that would have to be for each >>> observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one >>> frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the >>> direction between the events. > > Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve physical laws across inertial frames, by using an argument using a falling ball, arguing that the ball falls at a different rate in the other frame. So we need the balls. I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no attempt to address it. What he failed to realise is that the law of gravity does not require the same rate of acceleration to all objects. The thought experiment readily shows that the velocity an object already has enters into the equation. Indeed, this is rather obvious, since if it didn't, an object free-falling in a gravitational field would exceed the speed of light relative to a non-inertial observer in a finite time. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 08:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92055c21-3fc2-4abe-94f8-71a084c448c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426887 |
On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: > >> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a > >>> ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings > >>> the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under > >>> gravity[*] > >>> Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective > >>> train floors simultaneously. > >>> Problem is, that would have to be for each > >>> observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one > >>> frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the > >>> direction between the events. > > > > Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. > > Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve physical laws > across inertial frames, by using an argument using a falling ball, > arguing that the ball falls at a different rate in the other frame. So > we need the balls. When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) you are open for all sorts of problems. When you want to discuss SR you should not introduce falling balls that is tricky when moving observers are involved who drop balls. These balls all have their own speeds. > I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no attempt to > address it. What he failed to realise is that the law of gravity does > not require the same rate of acceleration to all objects. Also here gravity becomes involved which make things difficult. > The thought experiment readily shows that the velocity an object already > has enters into the equation. You have lost me. > Indeed, this is rather obvious, since if it didn't, > an object free-falling in a gravitational field would exceed the speed > of light relative to a non-inertial observer in a finite time. Sorry, you have lost me. What has this to do with the basics of simultaneity? On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: > Simultaneity has nothing to do with light or what separated people might > 'see'. If the two balls were dropped simultaneously by means of a > mechanical system, the two events can be assumed to be simultaneous in > all frames, even though they wont appear to be because of information's > finite travel time. That should be obvious.... The problem is there is a difference between if events ARE simultaneous versus if I see events simultaneous. When you want to discuss if events ARE simultaneous you should only consider one coordinate system (as a function of time). HGW... assumes many. In such a coor. system light is not important. The problem starts when you want introduce new observations. To mingle these observations into the coor.system ofcourse the speed of light is important. Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fd4869a-2547-4c1e-9b8a-9e5f0d98ab0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427061 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:40:13 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: > > >> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a > > >>> ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings > > >>> the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under > > >>> gravity[*] > > >>> Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective > > >>> train floors simultaneously. > > >>> Problem is, that would have to be for each > > >>> observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one > > >>> frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the > > >>> direction between the events. > > > > > > Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. > > > > Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve physical laws > > across inertial frames, by using an argument using a falling ball, > > arguing that the ball falls at a different rate in the other frame. So > > we need the balls. > > When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) you are open > for all sorts of problems. > When you want to discuss SR you should not introduce falling balls > that is tricky when moving observers are involved who drop balls. > These balls all have their own speeds. > > > I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no attempt to > > address it. What he failed to realise is that the law of gravity does > > not require the same rate of acceleration to all objects. > Well, it did not need to be addressed. Galileo settled that question a long time ago when he dropped two different lead weights of different sizes from the top of the leaning tower of Piza, and they both hit the ground at the same time. So I guess what you could do if you are a scientist is time the descent of one ball according to a clock on the ground and the other with a clock in a satellite in orbit around the earth. Then you would have the two different rates of acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why scientists do the things they do, I do not understand, but I certainly would defend their right to believe whatever they want to believe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 11:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <om0ka9$1opd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427074 |
On 04/08/17 02:31, Robert Winn wrote: So I guess what you could do > if you are a scientist is time the descent of one ball according to a > clock on the ground and the other with a clock in a satellite in > orbit around the earth. Note, the orbit period itself provides a common ABSOLUTE time interval against which both ground and orbiting clocks can be synchronized. Theoretically anyway. Both can be set so they register the same n ticks per orbit. Then they will all be in absolute synch. > Then you would have the two different rates > of acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why scientists > do the things they do, I do not understand, but I certainly would > defend their right to believe whatever they want to believe. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 12:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eui4aeF48anU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #427074 |
On 4/08/2017 2:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:40:13 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas Vroom > wrote: >> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: >>>> On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: >>>>> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an >>>>>> observer and a ball which is initially held high. When the >>>>>> motion of the trains brings the balls next to each other, >>>>>> the balls are released to fall under gravity[*] Now, you >>>>>> might expect the balls to land on the respective train >>>>>> floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be >>>>>> for each observer, and spatially separated events that are >>>>>> simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame >>>>>> that has motion in the direction between the events. >>>> >>>> Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. >>> >>> Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve physical >>> laws across inertial frames, by using an argument using a falling >>> ball, arguing that the ball falls at a different rate in the >>> other frame. So we need the balls. >> >> When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) you are >> open for all sorts of problems. When you want to discuss SR you >> should not introduce falling balls that is tricky when moving >> observers are involved who drop balls. These balls all have their >> own speeds. >> >>> I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no >>> attempt to address it. What he failed to realise is that the law >>> of gravity does not require the same rate of acceleration to all >>> objects. >> > Well, it did not need to be addressed. Galileo settled that question > a long time ago when he dropped two different lead weights of > different sizes from the top of the leaning tower of Piza, and they > both hit the ground at the same time. So I guess what you could do > if you are a scientist is time the descent of one ball according to a > clock on the ground and the other with a clock in a satellite in > orbit around the earth. Then you would have the two different rates > of acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why scientists > do the things they do, I do not understand, but I certainly would > defend their right to believe whatever they want to believe. > Galileo did not do the experiment with two lead weights, one of which had a transverse velocity that was a significant fraction of the speed of light. His experiment related to different masses with no transverse velocity, and his results are limited to that scenario. You seem to think that gravity is insensitive to transverse velocity. Quite why you think that escapes me, since you have no reason to suppose that it is the case. As for the clock on the ground and the clock on the satellite, you not only have the transverse velocity issue, but now you really have introduced the issue of whether the observers are inertial, since the free-falling observers on the satellite are inertial, but the ones on the ground are not. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 21:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62d617b5-665e-489b-8d0f-8e42283d9e67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427154 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/08/2017 2:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:40:13 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas Vroom > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: > >>>>> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an > >>>>>> observer and a ball which is initially held high. When the > >>>>>> motion of the trains brings the balls next to each other, > >>>>>> the balls are released to fall under gravity[*] Now, you > >>>>>> might expect the balls to land on the respective train > >>>>>> floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be > >>>>>> for each observer, and spatially separated events that are > >>>>>> simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame > >>>>>> that has motion in the direction between the events. > >>>> > >>>> Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. > >>> > >>> Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve physical > >>> laws across inertial frames, by using an argument using a falling > >>> ball, arguing that the ball falls at a different rate in the > >>> other frame. So we need the balls. > >> > >> When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) you are > >> open for all sorts of problems. When you want to discuss SR you > >> should not introduce falling balls that is tricky when moving > >> observers are involved who drop balls. These balls all have their > >> own speeds. > >> > >>> I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no > >>> attempt to address it. What he failed to realise is that the law > >>> of gravity does not require the same rate of acceleration to all > >>> objects. > >> > > Well, it did not need to be addressed. Galileo settled that question > > a long time ago when he dropped two different lead weights of > > different sizes from the top of the leaning tower of Piza, and they > > both hit the ground at the same time. So I guess what you could do > > if you are a scientist is time the descent of one ball according to a > > clock on the ground and the other with a clock in a satellite in > > orbit around the earth. Then you would have the two different rates > > of acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why scientists > > do the things they do, I do not understand, but I certainly would > > defend their right to believe whatever they want to believe. > > > > Galileo did not do the experiment with two lead weights, one of which > had a transverse velocity that was a significant fraction of the speed > of light. His experiment related to different masses with no transverse > velocity, and his results are limited to that scenario. > > You seem to think that gravity is insensitive to transverse velocity. > Quite why you think that escapes me, since you have no reason to suppose > that it is the case. > > As for the clock on the ground and the clock on the satellite, you not > only have the transverse velocity issue, but now you really have > introduced the issue of whether the observers are inertial, since the > free-falling observers on the satellite are inertial, but the ones on > the ground are not. > > Sylvia. I would just say that the clock in the satellite is faster than the one on the ground.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 15:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <euif63F6dniU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #427171 |
On 4/08/2017 2:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/08/2017 2:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:40:13 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas Vroom >>> wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: >>>>>>> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an >>>>>>>> observer and a ball which is initially held high. When the >>>>>>>> motion of the trains brings the balls next to each other, >>>>>>>> the balls are released to fall under gravity[*] Now, you >>>>>>>> might expect the balls to land on the respective train >>>>>>>> floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be >>>>>>>> for each observer, and spatially separated events that are >>>>>>>> simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame >>>>>>>> that has motion in the direction between the events. >>>>>> >>>>>> Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. >>>>> >>>>> Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve physical >>>>> laws across inertial frames, by using an argument using a falling >>>>> ball, arguing that the ball falls at a different rate in the >>>>> other frame. So we need the balls. >>>> >>>> When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) you are >>>> open for all sorts of problems. When you want to discuss SR you >>>> should not introduce falling balls that is tricky when moving >>>> observers are involved who drop balls. These balls all have their >>>> own speeds. >>>> >>>>> I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no >>>>> attempt to address it. What he failed to realise is that the law >>>>> of gravity does not require the same rate of acceleration to all >>>>> objects. >>>> >>> Well, it did not need to be addressed. Galileo settled that question >>> a long time ago when he dropped two different lead weights of >>> different sizes from the top of the leaning tower of Piza, and they >>> both hit the ground at the same time. So I guess what you could do >>> if you are a scientist is time the descent of one ball according to a >>> clock on the ground and the other with a clock in a satellite in >>> orbit around the earth. Then you would have the two different rates >>> of acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why scientists >>> do the things they do, I do not understand, but I certainly would >>> defend their right to believe whatever they want to believe. >>> >> >> Galileo did not do the experiment with two lead weights, one of which >> had a transverse velocity that was a significant fraction of the speed >> of light. His experiment related to different masses with no transverse >> velocity, and his results are limited to that scenario. >> >> You seem to think that gravity is insensitive to transverse velocity. >> Quite why you think that escapes me, since you have no reason to suppose >> that it is the case. >> >> As for the clock on the ground and the clock on the satellite, you not >> only have the transverse velocity issue, but now you really have >> introduced the issue of whether the observers are inertial, since the >> free-falling observers on the satellite are inertial, but the ones on >> the ground are not. >> >> Sylvia. > > I would just say that the clock in the satellite is faster than the one on the ground. > It doesn't exactly advance your position. The laws of physics are formulated in terms of proper time, which is what is measured by a clock in the same frame as the observer, so observers don't have the option of choosing a clock in any frame to perform their measurements - they must use a clock in their own frame. Doing anything else makes little physical sense. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d9b1477-fcce-422e-9622-8c34709572e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427174 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:31:52 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/08/2017 2:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 4/08/2017 2:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:40:13 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas Vroom > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: > >>>>>>> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an > >>>>>>>> observer and a ball which is initially held high. When the > >>>>>>>> motion of the trains brings the balls next to each other, > >>>>>>>> the balls are released to fall under gravity[*] Now, you > >>>>>>>> might expect the balls to land on the respective train > >>>>>>>> floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be > >>>>>>>> for each observer, and spatially separated events that are > >>>>>>>> simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame > >>>>>>>> that has motion in the direction between the events. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. > >>>>> > >>>>> Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve physical > >>>>> laws across inertial frames, by using an argument using a falling > >>>>> ball, arguing that the ball falls at a different rate in the > >>>>> other frame. So we need the balls. > >>>> > >>>> When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) you are > >>>> open for all sorts of problems. When you want to discuss SR you > >>>> should not introduce falling balls that is tricky when moving > >>>> observers are involved who drop balls. These balls all have their > >>>> own speeds. > >>>> > >>>>> I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no > >>>>> attempt to address it. What he failed to realise is that the law > >>>>> of gravity does not require the same rate of acceleration to all > >>>>> objects. > >>>> > >>> Well, it did not need to be addressed. Galileo settled that question > >>> a long time ago when he dropped two different lead weights of > >>> different sizes from the top of the leaning tower of Piza, and they > >>> both hit the ground at the same time. So I guess what you could do > >>> if you are a scientist is time the descent of one ball according to a > >>> clock on the ground and the other with a clock in a satellite in > >>> orbit around the earth. Then you would have the two different rates > >>> of acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why scientists > >>> do the things they do, I do not understand, but I certainly would > >>> defend their right to believe whatever they want to believe. > >>> > >> > >> Galileo did not do the experiment with two lead weights, one of which > >> had a transverse velocity that was a significant fraction of the speed > >> of light. His experiment related to different masses with no transverse > >> velocity, and his results are limited to that scenario. > >> > >> You seem to think that gravity is insensitive to transverse velocity. > >> Quite why you think that escapes me, since you have no reason to suppose > >> that it is the case. > >> > >> As for the clock on the ground and the clock on the satellite, you not > >> only have the transverse velocity issue, but now you really have > >> introduced the issue of whether the observers are inertial, since the > >> free-falling observers on the satellite are inertial, but the ones on > >> the ground are not. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I would just say that the clock in the satellite is faster than the one on the ground. > > > > It doesn't exactly advance your position. The laws of physics are > formulated in terms of proper time, which is what is measured by a clock > in the same frame as the observer, so observers don't have the option of > choosing a clock in any frame to perform their measurements - they must > use a clock in their own frame. Doing anything else makes little > physical sense. > > Sylvia. It makes perfect physical sense. It has to do with relativity, which scientists abandoned in 1887. Since scientists want to present physics as some sort of magic which only they can understand, let's just talk about some known facts for a while. The earth is rotating on its axis. I know what a difficult concept this is for scientists, but it is true, nevertheless, even though Galileo was placed under house arrest for saying this. But scientists eventually admitted that the earth was rotating after Galileo died, so we should be able to come to some sort of agreement about this. So measurement of time was calculated from the rotation of the earth. Having established this fact, we can also state that there are satellites in orbit around the earth, not just the moon, but also man made satellites, some of which have clocks inside them. So now, taking all of these facts into consideration, the earth is at some position relative to the sun when the clock on my computer reads 7:21, which is what it says right now. At the time this clock changed to 7:21, a satellite with a clock was at some position relative to the earth and sun, and the clock in that satellite also registered some time. Now the question that seems to baffle scientists is, What time does the clock in the satellite register when the clock on my computer changes to 7:21? Well, it would appear that it would depend on the rate of the clock in the satellite. If the clock in the satellite is faster than the clock on my computer, and at some time in the past the clock in the satellite read the same as the clock on my computer, then the clock in the satellite will register a later time than 7:21 when my computer clock changes to that time. If the clock in the satellite is slower than the clock in my computer, then the clock in the satellite will register an earlier time than 7:21 when my computer changes to 7:21 if the two clocks agreed with each other at some time in the past. Scientists all say, It is because of a length contraction. No, it is not because of a length contraction. It is because of the rates of the clocks. Now, suppose that at some time I can find a scientist who will admit that clocks can have different rates. Then, possibly, I would be able to have a conversation with that scientist. But, as things stand, no such conversation is ever going to take place. There is no such scientist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 14:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eukv02Fo0h5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #427200 |
On 5/08/2017 12:34 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:31:52 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/08/2017 2:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 4/08/2017 2:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:40:13 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas >>>>> Vroom wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has >>>>>>>>>> an observer and a ball which is initially held >>>>>>>>>> high. When the motion of the trains brings the >>>>>>>>>> balls next to each other, the balls are released to >>>>>>>>>> fall under gravity[*] Now, you might expect the >>>>>>>>>> balls to land on the respective train floors >>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be >>>>>>>>>> for each observer, and spatially separated events >>>>>>>>>> that are simultaneous in one frame cannot be >>>>>>>>>> simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the >>>>>>>>>> direction between the events. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve >>>>>>> physical laws across inertial frames, by using an >>>>>>> argument using a falling ball, arguing that the ball >>>>>>> falls at a different rate in the other frame. So we need >>>>>>> the balls. >>>>>> >>>>>> When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) >>>>>> you are open for all sorts of problems. When you want to >>>>>> discuss SR you should not introduce falling balls that is >>>>>> tricky when moving observers are involved who drop balls. >>>>>> These balls all have their own speeds. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn >>>>>>> made no attempt to address it. What he failed to realise >>>>>>> is that the law of gravity does not require the same rate >>>>>>> of acceleration to all objects. >>>>>> >>>>> Well, it did not need to be addressed. Galileo settled that >>>>> question a long time ago when he dropped two different lead >>>>> weights of different sizes from the top of the leaning tower >>>>> of Piza, and they both hit the ground at the same time. So I >>>>> guess what you could do if you are a scientist is time the >>>>> descent of one ball according to a clock on the ground and >>>>> the other with a clock in a satellite in orbit around the >>>>> earth. Then you would have the two different rates of >>>>> acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why >>>>> scientists do the things they do, I do not understand, but I >>>>> certainly would defend their right to believe whatever they >>>>> want to believe. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Galileo did not do the experiment with two lead weights, one of >>>> which had a transverse velocity that was a significant fraction >>>> of the speed of light. His experiment related to different >>>> masses with no transverse velocity, and his results are limited >>>> to that scenario. >>>> >>>> You seem to think that gravity is insensitive to transverse >>>> velocity. Quite why you think that escapes me, since you have >>>> no reason to suppose that it is the case. >>>> >>>> As for the clock on the ground and the clock on the satellite, >>>> you not only have the transverse velocity issue, but now you >>>> really have introduced the issue of whether the observers are >>>> inertial, since the free-falling observers on the satellite are >>>> inertial, but the ones on the ground are not. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> I would just say that the clock in the satellite is faster than >>> the one on the ground. >>> >> >> It doesn't exactly advance your position. The laws of physics are >> formulated in terms of proper time, which is what is measured by a >> clock in the same frame as the observer, so observers don't have >> the option of choosing a clock in any frame to perform their >> measurements - they must use a clock in their own frame. Doing >> anything else makes little physical sense. >> >> Sylvia. > > It makes perfect physical sense. It has to do with relativity, which > scientists abandoned in 1887. Since scientists want to present > physics as some sort of magic which only they can understand, let's > just talk about some known facts for a while. The earth is rotating > on its axis. I know what a difficult concept this is for scientists, > but it is true, nevertheless, even though Galileo was placed under > house arrest for saying this By the church, who had no interest in the truth, and lots of interest in maintaining power. > But scientists eventually admitted that > the earth was rotating after Galileo died, so we should be able to > come to some sort of agreement about this. So measurement of time > was calculated from the rotation of the earth. In that period, the rotation of the Earth happened to be the most accurate basis for measuring time. It has been superseded because, firstly, the rotation is slowing due to tidal drag, and secondly because it is subject to random changes as a result of earthquakes and similar disturbances that change the Earth's moment of inertia. > Having established > this fact, we can also state that there are satellites in orbit > around the earth, not just the moon, but also man made satellites, > some of which have clocks inside them. So now, taking all of these > facts into consideration, the earth is at some position relative to > the sun when the clock on my computer reads 7:21, which is what it > says right now. At the time this clock changed to 7:21, a satellite > with a clock was at some position relative to the earth and sun, and > the clock in that satellite also registered some time. Now the > question that seems to baffle scientists is, What time does the clock > in the satellite register when the clock on my computer changes to > 7:21? It's not a straightforward question, because it is frame dependent. You also haven't specified the zero point, which also raises frame dependencies because the satellite and the clock on the ground are never in the same place. But, leaving aside those issue, and the complexity of the calculations, scientists are not baffled, your question is just ill-specified, and does not have a unique answer. Well, it would appear that it would depend on the rate of the > clock in the satellite. If the clock in the satellite is faster than > the clock on my computer, and at some time in the past the clock in > the satellite read the same as the clock on my computer, then the > clock in the satellite will register a later time than 7:21 when my > computer clock changes to that time. If the clock in the satellite > is slower than the clock in my computer, then the clock in the > satellite will register an earlier time than 7:21 when my computer > changes to 7:21 if the two clocks agreed with each other at some time > in the past. Scientists all say, It is because of a length > contraction. Who are all these scientist who say it's because of length contraction? Most of them would recognise this as a problem in general relativity, and wouldn't mention length contraction at all. No, it is not because of a length contraction. It is > because of the rates of the clocks. Now, suppose that at some time I > can find a scientist who will admit that clocks can have different > rates. Then, possibly, I would be able to have a conversation with > that scientist. But, as things stand, no such conversation is ever > going to take place. There is no such scientist. > As before, you seem to be fixated on this notion of different clock rates. It has long been established that if you take an accurate clock around the world in an aeroplane, and then compare it with a similarly accurate clock that stayed behind, then the clocks will differ (in accordance with the prediction of general relativity). It is also well established that the signals from GPS satellites do not exactly reflect the passage of time at those satellites (and thus the rate of clocks in the satellites), because they are adjusted so as to arrive at the desired rate on the ground. But you constantly avoid the central question - the function of a clock, which is to measure the passage of time at the location of the clock. Whether the clock is on the ground, in an aeroplane, or in a GPS satellite, this is what the clocks do. In all cases, the clocks measure the passage of time in accordance with the laws of physics - because they are themselves subject to those very laws. You seem to want clocks to do something else, but I can't see why you'd want that, other than to fit them into your own theory. Even then, your theory, as far as I can see, is incapable of telling you what rate to apply to the clocks. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07a8a926-1785-4e13-ad87-3091a95ed7d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427279 |
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 9:13:59 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/08/2017 12:34 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:31:52 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 4/08/2017 2:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/08/2017 2:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:40:13 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas
> >>>>> Vroom wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has
> >>>>>>>>>> an observer and a ball which is initially held
> >>>>>>>>>> high. When the motion of the trains brings the
> >>>>>>>>>> balls next to each other, the balls are released to
> >>>>>>>>>> fall under gravity[*] Now, you might expect the
> >>>>>>>>>> balls to land on the respective train floors
> >>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be
> >>>>>>>>>> for each observer, and spatially separated events
> >>>>>>>>>> that are simultaneous in one frame cannot be
> >>>>>>>>>> simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the
> >>>>>>>>>> direction between the events.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve
> >>>>>>> physical laws across inertial frames, by using an
> >>>>>>> argument using a falling ball, arguing that the ball
> >>>>>>> falls at a different rate in the other frame. So we need
> >>>>>>> the balls.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved)
> >>>>>> you are open for all sorts of problems. When you want to
> >>>>>> discuss SR you should not introduce falling balls that is
> >>>>>> tricky when moving observers are involved who drop balls.
> >>>>>> These balls all have their own speeds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn
> >>>>>>> made no attempt to address it. What he failed to realise
> >>>>>>> is that the law of gravity does not require the same rate
> >>>>>>> of acceleration to all objects.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Well, it did not need to be addressed. Galileo settled that
> >>>>> question a long time ago when he dropped two different lead
> >>>>> weights of different sizes from the top of the leaning tower
> >>>>> of Piza, and they both hit the ground at the same time. So I
> >>>>> guess what you could do if you are a scientist is time the
> >>>>> descent of one ball according to a clock on the ground and
> >>>>> the other with a clock in a satellite in orbit around the
> >>>>> earth. Then you would have the two different rates of
> >>>>> acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why
> >>>>> scientists do the things they do, I do not understand, but I
> >>>>> certainly would defend their right to believe whatever they
> >>>>> want to believe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Galileo did not do the experiment with two lead weights, one of
> >>>> which had a transverse velocity that was a significant fraction
> >>>> of the speed of light. His experiment related to different
> >>>> masses with no transverse velocity, and his results are limited
> >>>> to that scenario.
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem to think that gravity is insensitive to transverse
> >>>> velocity. Quite why you think that escapes me, since you have
> >>>> no reason to suppose that it is the case.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for the clock on the ground and the clock on the satellite,
> >>>> you not only have the transverse velocity issue, but now you
> >>>> really have introduced the issue of whether the observers are
> >>>> inertial, since the free-falling observers on the satellite are
> >>>> inertial, but the ones on the ground are not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> I would just say that the clock in the satellite is faster than
> >>> the one on the ground.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It doesn't exactly advance your position. The laws of physics are
> >> formulated in terms of proper time, which is what is measured by a
> >> clock in the same frame as the observer, so observers don't have
> >> the option of choosing a clock in any frame to perform their
> >> measurements - they must use a clock in their own frame. Doing
> >> anything else makes little physical sense.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > It makes perfect physical sense. It has to do with relativity, which
> > scientists abandoned in 1887. Since scientists want to present
> > physics as some sort of magic which only they can understand, let's
> > just talk about some known facts for a while. The earth is rotating
> > on its axis. I know what a difficult concept this is for scientists,
> > but it is true, nevertheless, even though Galileo was placed under
> > house arrest for saying this
>
> By the church, who had no interest in the truth, and lots of interest in
> maintaining power.
>
By civil authorities. But I think we might compare scientists of today to church authorities of that time. They are the same kind of people.
> > But scientists eventually admitted that
> > the earth was rotating after Galileo died, so we should be able to
> > come to some sort of agreement about this. So measurement of time
> > was calculated from the rotation of the earth.
>
> In that period, the rotation of the Earth happened to be the most
> accurate basis for measuring time. It has been superseded because,
> firstly, the rotation is slowing due to tidal drag, and secondly because
> it is subject to random changes as a result of earthquakes and similar
> disturbances that change the Earth's moment of inertia.
Your objections have no relevance. The earth still rotates, notwithstanding your objections. If you really thought one rotation was inaccurate, you could average a sufficiently large number of rotations, but scientists do not want to admit that rotation of the earth was once used to measure time on earth.
> > Having established
> > this fact, we can also state that there are satellites in orbit
> > around the earth, not just the moon, but also man made satellites,
> > some of which have clocks inside them. So now, taking all of these
> > facts into consideration, the earth is at some position relative to
> > the sun when the clock on my computer reads 7:21, which is what it
> > says right now. At the time this clock changed to 7:21, a satellite
> > with a clock was at some position relative to the earth and sun, and
> > the clock in that satellite also registered some time. Now the
> > question that seems to baffle scientists is, What time does the clock
> > in the satellite register when the clock on my computer changes to
> > 7:21?
>
> It's not a straightforward question, because it is frame dependent. You
> also haven't specified the zero point, which also raises frame
> dependencies because the satellite and the clock on the ground are never
> in the same place. But, leaving aside those issue, and the complexity of
> the calculations, scientists are not baffled, your question is just
> ill-specified, and does not have a unique answer.
I do not care about a unique answer. I care about a specific answer. As I said, common everyday people can all see that the sun, earth, and the satellite all have specific positions relative to one another when my computer clock changes to 7:21 a.m. The clock in the satellite registers a specific time when the sun, earth, and satellite are in these specific positions. What is that time?
The question is no good, you say. Well, that means that you as a scientist will never answer it. Why don't you run along and play with your expensive toys? I already have the equations.
> Well, it would appear that it would depend on the rate of the
> > clock in the satellite. If the clock in the satellite is faster than
> > the clock on my computer, and at some time in the past the clock in
> > the satellite read the same as the clock on my computer, then the
> > clock in the satellite will register a later time than 7:21 when my
> > computer clock changes to that time. If the clock in the satellite
> > is slower than the clock in my computer, then the clock in the
> > satellite will register an earlier time than 7:21 when my computer
> > changes to 7:21 if the two clocks agreed with each other at some time
> > in the past. Scientists all say, It is because of a length
> > contraction.
>
> Who are all these scientist who say it's because of length contraction?
> Most of them would recognise this as a problem in general relativity,
> and wouldn't mention length contraction at all.
>
So you are saying General Relativity does not have a length contraction? I say it does. It is opposite to the length contraction in Special Relativity, so all scientists have to do is get the mixture of equations from Special and General Relativity that agree with any specific experiment, and they can say they have solved any problem.
> No, it is not because of a length contraction. It is
> > because of the rates of the clocks. Now, suppose that at some time I
> > can find a scientist who will admit that clocks can have different
> > rates. Then, possibly, I would be able to have a conversation with
> > that scientist. But, as things stand, no such conversation is ever
> > going to take place. There is no such scientist.
> >
>
> As before, you seem to be fixated on this notion of different clock
> rates. It has long been established that if you take an accurate clock
> around the world in an aeroplane, and then compare it with a similarly
> accurate clock that stayed behind, then the clocks will differ (in
> accordance with the prediction of general relativity). It is also well
> established that the signals from GPS satellites do not exactly reflect
> the passage of time at those satellites (and thus the rate of clocks in
> the satellites), because they are adjusted so as to arrive at the
> desired rate on the ground.
Well, you almost admitted that the clock in the satellite has a different rate, but not quite. I think we will have to say you will have to try again.
> But you constantly avoid the central question - the function of a clock,
> which is to measure the passage of time at the location of the clock.
> Whether the clock is on the ground, in an aeroplane, or in a GPS
> satellite, this is what the clocks do. In all cases, the clocks measure
> the passage of time in accordance with the laws of physics - because
> they are themselves subject to those very laws.
I already gave you the correct equations. They are the same ones Galileo used. If two clocks have different rates, you have to use two sets of Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
So we could say that t is the time of a clock on the ground, and n' is the time of a clock in a satellite. It does not matter if the clock in the satellite is faster or slower than the clock on the ground. These equations describe the times of the clocks.
> You seem to want clocks to do something else, but I can't see why you'd
> want that, other than to fit them into your own theory. Even then, your
> theory, as far as I can see, is incapable of telling you what rate to
> apply to the clocks.
>
> Sylvia.
Mine is not a theory. Galileo was right about relativity. Sorry to see scientists so confused about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 16:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eul644Fpf0vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #427282 |
On 5/08/2017 3:32 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 9:13:59 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 5/08/2017 12:34 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:31:52 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 4/08/2017 2:58 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/08/2017 2:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:40:13 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas >>>>>>> Vroom wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC+2, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/08/2017 7:47 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 29/07/17 16:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has >>>>>>>>>>>> an observer and a ball which is initially held >>>>>>>>>>>> high. When the motion of the trains brings the >>>>>>>>>>>> balls next to each other, the balls are released to >>>>>>>>>>>> fall under gravity[*] Now, you might expect the >>>>>>>>>>>> balls to land on the respective train floors >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be >>>>>>>>>>>> for each observer, and spatially separated events >>>>>>>>>>>> that are simultaneous in one frame cannot be >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the >>>>>>>>>>>> direction between the events. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve >>>>>>>>> physical laws across inertial frames, by using an >>>>>>>>> argument using a falling ball, arguing that the ball >>>>>>>>> falls at a different rate in the other frame. So we need >>>>>>>>> the balls. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) >>>>>>>> you are open for all sorts of problems. When you want to >>>>>>>> discuss SR you should not introduce falling balls that is >>>>>>>> tricky when moving observers are involved who drop balls. >>>>>>>> These balls all have their own speeds. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn >>>>>>>>> made no attempt to address it. What he failed to realise >>>>>>>>> is that the law of gravity does not require the same rate >>>>>>>>> of acceleration to all objects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, it did not need to be addressed. Galileo settled that >>>>>>> question a long time ago when he dropped two different lead >>>>>>> weights of different sizes from the top of the leaning tower >>>>>>> of Piza, and they both hit the ground at the same time. So I >>>>>>> guess what you could do if you are a scientist is time the >>>>>>> descent of one ball according to a clock on the ground and >>>>>>> the other with a clock in a satellite in orbit around the >>>>>>> earth. Then you would have the two different rates of >>>>>>> acceleration that you seem to find so important. Why >>>>>>> scientists do the things they do, I do not understand, but I >>>>>>> certainly would defend their right to believe whatever they >>>>>>> want to believe. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Galileo did not do the experiment with two lead weights, one of >>>>>> which had a transverse velocity that was a significant fraction >>>>>> of the speed of light. His experiment related to different >>>>>> masses with no transverse velocity, and his results are limited >>>>>> to that scenario. >>>>>> >>>>>> You seem to think that gravity is insensitive to transverse >>>>>> velocity. Quite why you think that escapes me, since you have >>>>>> no reason to suppose that it is the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for the clock on the ground and the clock on the satellite, >>>>>> you not only have the transverse velocity issue, but now you >>>>>> really have introduced the issue of whether the observers are >>>>>> inertial, since the free-falling observers on the satellite are >>>>>> inertial, but the ones on the ground are not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> I would just say that the clock in the satellite is faster than >>>>> the one on the ground. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It doesn't exactly advance your position. The laws of physics are >>>> formulated in terms of proper time, which is what is measured by a >>>> clock in the same frame as the observer, so observers don't have >>>> the option of choosing a clock in any frame to perform their >>>> measurements - they must use a clock in their own frame. Doing >>>> anything else makes little physical sense. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> It makes perfect physical sense. It has to do with relativity, which >>> scientists abandoned in 1887. Since scientists want to present >>> physics as some sort of magic which only they can understand, let's >>> just talk about some known facts for a while. The earth is rotating >>> on its axis. I know what a difficult concept this is for scientists, >>> but it is true, nevertheless, even though Galileo was placed under >>> house arrest for saying this >> >> By the church, who had no interest in the truth, and lots of interest in >> maintaining power. >> > By civil authorities. But I think we might compare scientists of today to church authorities of that time. They are the same kind of people. > > >>> But scientists eventually admitted that >>> the earth was rotating after Galileo died, so we should be able to >>> come to some sort of agreement about this. So measurement of time >>> was calculated from the rotation of the earth. >> >> In that period, the rotation of the Earth happened to be the most >> accurate basis for measuring time. It has been superseded because, >> firstly, the rotation is slowing due to tidal drag, and secondly because >> it is subject to random changes as a result of earthquakes and similar >> disturbances that change the Earth's moment of inertia. > > Your objections have no relevance. The earth still rotates, notwithstanding your objections. If you really thought one rotation was inaccurate, you could average a sufficiently large number of rotations, but scientists do not want to admit that rotation of the earth was once used to measure time on earth. Who are these scientists who don't want want to admit it? Name names. > >>> Having established >>> this fact, we can also state that there are satellites in orbit >>> around the earth, not just the moon, but also man made satellites, >>> some of which have clocks inside them. So now, taking all of these >>> facts into consideration, the earth is at some position relative to >>> the sun when the clock on my computer reads 7:21, which is what it >>> says right now. At the time this clock changed to 7:21, a satellite >>> with a clock was at some position relative to the earth and sun, and >>> the clock in that satellite also registered some time. Now the >>> question that seems to baffle scientists is, What time does the clock >>> in the satellite register when the clock on my computer changes to >>> 7:21? >> >> It's not a straightforward question, because it is frame dependent. You >> also haven't specified the zero point, which also raises frame >> dependencies because the satellite and the clock on the ground are never >> in the same place. But, leaving aside those issue, and the complexity of >> the calculations, scientists are not baffled, your question is just >> ill-specified, and does not have a unique answer. > > I do not care about a unique answer. I care about a specific answer. As I said, common everyday people can all see that the sun, earth, and the satellite all have specific positions relative to one another when my computer clock changes to 7:21 a.m. The clock in the satellite registers a specific time when the sun, earth, and satellite are in these specific positions. What is that time? > The question is no good, you say. Well, that means that you as a scientist will never answer it. Why don't you run along and play with your expensive toys? I already have the equations. You're saying that the Earth, sun and satellite are in specific positions. That's really saying that they occupy those positions simultaneously. But if they occupy those positions simultaneously in your frame on Earth, the do not occupy those positions simultaneously in the frame of the satellite, so you cannot meaningfully ask what time is shown by the satellite's clock then. > >> Well, it would appear that it would depend on the rate of the >>> clock in the satellite. If the clock in the satellite is faster than >>> the clock on my computer, and at some time in the past the clock in >>> the satellite read the same as the clock on my computer, then the >>> clock in the satellite will register a later time than 7:21 when my >>> computer clock changes to that time. If the clock in the satellite >>> is slower than the clock in my computer, then the clock in the >>> satellite will register an earlier time than 7:21 when my computer >>> changes to 7:21 if the two clocks agreed with each other at some time >>> in the past. Scientists all say, It is because of a length >>> contraction. >> >> Who are all these scientist who say it's because of length contraction? >> Most of them would recognise this as a problem in general relativity, >> and wouldn't mention length contraction at all. >> > So you are saying General Relativity does not have a length contraction? I say it does. It is opposite to the length contraction in Special Relativity, so all scientists have to do is get the mixture of equations from Special and General Relativity that agree with any specific experiment, and they can say they have solved any problem. Special relativity is what General Relativity reduces to in the absence of gravity, so they cannot possibly say different things in that case. Where gravity is involved, you have to use the general theory. It's not a matter of mixing the two together. > > >> No, it is not because of a length contraction. It is >>> because of the rates of the clocks. Now, suppose that at some time I >>> can find a scientist who will admit that clocks can have different >>> rates. Then, possibly, I would be able to have a conversation with >>> that scientist. But, as things stand, no such conversation is ever >>> going to take place. There is no such scientist. >>> >> >> As before, you seem to be fixated on this notion of different clock >> rates. It has long been established that if you take an accurate clock >> around the world in an aeroplane, and then compare it with a similarly >> accurate clock that stayed behind, then the clocks will differ (in >> accordance with the prediction of general relativity). It is also well >> established that the signals from GPS satellites do not exactly reflect >> the passage of time at those satellites (and thus the rate of clocks in >> the satellites), because they are adjusted so as to arrive at the >> desired rate on the ground. > > Well, you almost admitted that the clock in the satellite has a different rate, but not quite. I think we will have to say you will have to try again. > >> But you constantly avoid the central question - the function of a clock, >> which is to measure the passage of time at the location of the clock. >> Whether the clock is on the ground, in an aeroplane, or in a GPS >> satellite, this is what the clocks do. In all cases, the clocks measure >> the passage of time in accordance with the laws of physics - because >> they are themselves subject to those very laws. > > I already gave you the correct equations. They are the same ones Galileo used. If two clocks have different rates, you have to use two sets of Galilean transformation equations. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > x = x' - v'n' > y = y' > z = z' > n = n' > So we could say that t is the time of a clock on the ground, and n' is the time of a clock in a satellite. It does not matter if the clock in the satellite is faster or slower than the clock on the ground. These equations describe the times of the clocks. We're back to that. The universe could work that way, but if it did, the speed of light would not be the same for all observers. Since experiments show that it is the same, those equations cannot be correct. > >> You seem to want clocks to do something else, but I can't see why you'd >> want that, other than to fit them into your own theory. Even then, your >> theory, as far as I can see, is incapable of telling you what rate to >> apply to the clocks. >> >> Sylvia. > > Mine is not a theory. Galileo was right about relativity. Sorry to see scientists so confused about it. > Galileo didn't know that the speed of light is the same for all observers, a fact that would no doubt have puzzled him greatly. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f75bed72-8704-4039-868a-8e1b3bbc8cf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427285 |
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 11:15:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/08/2017 3:32 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >> it is subject to random changes as a result of earthquakes and similar
> >> disturbances that change the Earth's moment of inertia.
> >
> > Your objections have no relevance. The earth still rotates, notwithstanding your objections. If you really thought one rotation was inaccurate, you could average a sufficiently large number of rotations, but scientists do not want to admit that rotation of the earth was once used to measure time on earth.
>
> Who are these scientists who don't want want to admit it? Name names.
>
Well, you would seem to be such a scientist. What is your name?
> >>> Having established
> >>> this fact, we can also state that there are satellites in orbit
> >>> around the earth, not just the moon, but also man made satellites,
> >>> some of which have clocks inside them. So now, taking all of these
> >>> facts into consideration, the earth is at some position relative to
> >>> the sun when the clock on my computer reads 7:21, which is what it
> >>> says right now. At the time this clock changed to 7:21, a satellite
> >>> with a clock was at some position relative to the earth and sun, and
> >>> the clock in that satellite also registered some time. Now the
> >>> question that seems to baffle scientists is, What time does the clock
> >>> in the satellite register when the clock on my computer changes to
> >>> 7:21?
> >>
> >> It's not a straightforward question, because it is frame dependent. You
> >> also haven't specified the zero point, which also raises frame
> >> dependencies because the satellite and the clock on the ground are never
> >> in the same place. But, leaving aside those issue, and the complexity of
> >> the calculations, scientists are not baffled, your question is just
> >> ill-specified, and does not have a unique answer.
> >
> > I do not care about a unique answer. I care about a specific answer. As I said, common everyday people can all see that the sun, earth, and the satellite all have specific positions relative to one another when my computer clock changes to 7:21 a.m. The clock in the satellite registers a specific time when the sun, earth, and satellite are in these specific positions. What is that time?
> > The question is no good, you say. Well, that means that you as a scientist will never answer it. Why don't you run along and play with your expensive toys? I already have the equations.
>
> You're saying that the Earth, sun and satellite are in specific
> positions. That's really saying that they occupy those positions
> simultaneously. But if they occupy those positions simultaneously in
> your frame on Earth, the do not occupy those positions simultaneously in
> the frame of the satellite, so you cannot meaningfully ask what time is
> shown by the satellite's clock then.
>
As I said before, you cannot admit that the rotation of the earth was once used to measure time. Your idea is that there is no relationship between the rotation of the earth, the position of the sun, and the orbit of the satellite around the earth. To you it is a function of length contraction.
> >> Well, it would appear that it would depend on the rate of the
> >>> clock in the satellite. If the clock in the satellite is faster than
> >>> the clock on my computer, and at some time in the past the clock in
> >>> the satellite read the same as the clock on my computer, then the
> >>> clock in the satellite will register a later time than 7:21 when my
> >>> computer clock changes to that time. If the clock in the satellite
> >>> is slower than the clock in my computer, then the clock in the
> >>> satellite will register an earlier time than 7:21 when my computer
> >>> changes to 7:21 if the two clocks agreed with each other at some time
> >>> in the past. Scientists all say, It is because of a length
> >>> contraction.
> >>
> >> Who are all these scientist who say it's because of length contraction?
> >> Most of them would recognise this as a problem in general relativity,
> >> and wouldn't mention length contraction at all.
> >>
> > So you are saying General Relativity does not have a length contraction? I say it does. It is opposite to the length contraction in Special Relativity, so all scientists have to do is get the mixture of equations from Special and General Relativity that agree with any specific experiment, and they can say they have solved any problem.
>
> Special relativity is what General Relativity reduces to in the absence
> of gravity, so they cannot possibly say different things in that case.
> Where gravity is involved, you have to use the general theory. It's not
> a matter of mixing the two together.
> >
It isn't? So what were Hafele and Keating doing?
> >
> >> No, it is not because of a length contraction. It is
> >>> because of the rates of the clocks. Now, suppose that at some time I
> >>> can find a scientist who will admit that clocks can have different
> >>> rates. Then, possibly, I would be able to have a conversation with
> >>> that scientist. But, as things stand, no such conversation is ever
> >>> going to take place. There is no such scientist.
> >>>
> >>
> >> As before, you seem to be fixated on this notion of different clock
> >> rates. It has long been established that if you take an accurate clock
> >> around the world in an aeroplane, and then compare it with a similarly
> >> accurate clock that stayed behind, then the clocks will differ (in
> >> accordance with the prediction of general relativity). It is also well
> >> established that the signals from GPS satellites do not exactly reflect
> >> the passage of time at those satellites (and thus the rate of clocks in
> >> the satellites), because they are adjusted so as to arrive at the
> >> desired rate on the ground.
> >
> > Well, you almost admitted that the clock in the satellite has a different rate, but not quite. I think we will have to say you will have to try again.
> >
> >> But you constantly avoid the central question - the function of a clock,
> >> which is to measure the passage of time at the location of the clock.
> >> Whether the clock is on the ground, in an aeroplane, or in a GPS
> >> satellite, this is what the clocks do. In all cases, the clocks measure
> >> the passage of time in accordance with the laws of physics - because
> >> they are themselves subject to those very laws.
> >
> > I already gave you the correct equations. They are the same ones Galileo used. If two clocks have different rates, you have to use two sets of Galilean transformation equations.
> >
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
> >
> > x = x' - v'n'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > n = n'
> > So we could say that t is the time of a clock on the ground, and n' is the time of a clock in a satellite. It does not matter if the clock in the satellite is faster or slower than the clock on the ground. These equations describe the times of the clocks.
>
> We're back to that. The universe could work that way, but if it did, the
> speed of light would not be the same for all observers. Since
> experiments show that it is the same, those equations cannot be correct.
There is more than one way to explain what experiments show.
The part of the Lorentz equations that keeps the speed of light at c is the expression (t-vx/c^2). The same expression can be obtained from the Galilean transformation equations. Einstein said he was showing the speed of light to be c by two little equations extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. Using this same principle with two sets of Galilean transformation equations, we obtain x=ct and x'=cn'. Then with regard to velocities, we have
u=dx/dt
u'=dx'dn'
x'=x-vt
dx' = dx = vdt
dx' = dt(dx/dt-v)
dx' = dt(u-v)
n' = (t - vx/c^2)
dn' = (dt - v dx/dt / c^2)
dn' = dt(1 = vu/c^2)
u' = dx'/dn'
u' = dt(u-v)/dt(1-vx/c^2)
u' = (u-v)/(1-vx/c^2)
So if two clocks both show light to be traveling at c, then the above equations show velocities according to the times of the two clocks. These velocities are the same velocities Einstein calculated from the Lorentz equations.
> >> You seem to want clocks to do something else, but I can't see why you'd
> >> want that, other than to fit them into your own theory. Even then, your
> >> theory, as far as I can see, is incapable of telling you what rate to
> >> apply to the clocks.
I have no need to apply any rates to the clocks. That is determined by experiment.
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Mine is not a theory. Galileo was right about relativity. Sorry to see scientists so confused about it.
> >
>
> Galileo didn't know that the speed of light is the same for all
> observers, a fact that would no doubt have puzzled him greatly.
>
> Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 13:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eunf7gFb1ukU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #427309 |
On 5/08/2017 11:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 11:15:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 5/08/2017 3:32 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>> it is subject to random changes as a result of earthquakes and similar >>>> disturbances that change the Earth's moment of inertia. >>> >>> Your objections have no relevance. The earth still rotates, notwithstanding your objections. If you really thought one rotation was inaccurate, you could average a sufficiently large number of rotations, but scientists do not want to admit that rotation of the earth was once used to measure time on earth. >> >> Who are these scientists who don't want want to admit it? Name names. >> > Well, you would seem to be such a scientist. What is your name? > >>>>> Having established >>>>> this fact, we can also state that there are satellites in orbit >>>>> around the earth, not just the moon, but also man made satellites, >>>>> some of which have clocks inside them. So now, taking all of these >>>>> facts into consideration, the earth is at some position relative to >>>>> the sun when the clock on my computer reads 7:21, which is what it >>>>> says right now. At the time this clock changed to 7:21, a satellite >>>>> with a clock was at some position relative to the earth and sun, and >>>>> the clock in that satellite also registered some time. Now the >>>>> question that seems to baffle scientists is, What time does the clock >>>>> in the satellite register when the clock on my computer changes to >>>>> 7:21? >>>> >>>> It's not a straightforward question, because it is frame dependent. You >>>> also haven't specified the zero point, which also raises frame >>>> dependencies because the satellite and the clock on the ground are never >>>> in the same place. But, leaving aside those issue, and the complexity of >>>> the calculations, scientists are not baffled, your question is just >>>> ill-specified, and does not have a unique answer. >>> >>> I do not care about a unique answer. I care about a specific answer. As I said, common everyday people can all see that the sun, earth, and the satellite all have specific positions relative to one another when my computer clock changes to 7:21 a.m. The clock in the satellite registers a specific time when the sun, earth, and satellite are in these specific positions. What is that time? >>> The question is no good, you say. Well, that means that you as a scientist will never answer it. Why don't you run along and play with your expensive toys? I already have the equations. >> >> You're saying that the Earth, sun and satellite are in specific >> positions. That's really saying that they occupy those positions >> simultaneously. But if they occupy those positions simultaneously in >> your frame on Earth, the do not occupy those positions simultaneously in >> the frame of the satellite, so you cannot meaningfully ask what time is >> shown by the satellite's clock then. >> > As I said before, you cannot admit that the rotation of the earth was once used to measure time. Your idea is that there is no relationship between the rotation of the earth, the position of the sun, and the orbit of the satellite around the earth. To you it is a function of length contraction. > >>>> Well, it would appear that it would depend on the rate of the >>>>> clock in the satellite. If the clock in the satellite is faster than >>>>> the clock on my computer, and at some time in the past the clock in >>>>> the satellite read the same as the clock on my computer, then the >>>>> clock in the satellite will register a later time than 7:21 when my >>>>> computer clock changes to that time. If the clock in the satellite >>>>> is slower than the clock in my computer, then the clock in the >>>>> satellite will register an earlier time than 7:21 when my computer >>>>> changes to 7:21 if the two clocks agreed with each other at some time >>>>> in the past. Scientists all say, It is because of a length >>>>> contraction. >>>> >>>> Who are all these scientist who say it's because of length contraction? >>>> Most of them would recognise this as a problem in general relativity, >>>> and wouldn't mention length contraction at all. >>>> >>> So you are saying General Relativity does not have a length contraction? I say it does. It is opposite to the length contraction in Special Relativity, so all scientists have to do is get the mixture of equations from Special and General Relativity that agree with any specific experiment, and they can say they have solved any problem. >> >> Special relativity is what General Relativity reduces to in the absence >> of gravity, so they cannot possibly say different things in that case. >> Where gravity is involved, you have to use the general theory. It's not >> a matter of mixing the two together. >>> > It isn't? So what were Hafele and Keating doing? >>> >>>> No, it is not because of a length contraction. It is >>>>> because of the rates of the clocks. Now, suppose that at some time I >>>>> can find a scientist who will admit that clocks can have different >>>>> rates. Then, possibly, I would be able to have a conversation with >>>>> that scientist. But, as things stand, no such conversation is ever >>>>> going to take place. There is no such scientist. >>>>> >>>> >>>> As before, you seem to be fixated on this notion of different clock >>>> rates. It has long been established that if you take an accurate clock >>>> around the world in an aeroplane, and then compare it with a similarly >>>> accurate clock that stayed behind, then the clocks will differ (in >>>> accordance with the prediction of general relativity). It is also well >>>> established that the signals from GPS satellites do not exactly reflect >>>> the passage of time at those satellites (and thus the rate of clocks in >>>> the satellites), because they are adjusted so as to arrive at the >>>> desired rate on the ground. >>> >>> Well, you almost admitted that the clock in the satellite has a different rate, but not quite. I think we will have to say you will have to try again. >>> >>>> But you constantly avoid the central question - the function of a clock, >>>> which is to measure the passage of time at the location of the clock. >>>> Whether the clock is on the ground, in an aeroplane, or in a GPS >>>> satellite, this is what the clocks do. In all cases, the clocks measure >>>> the passage of time in accordance with the laws of physics - because >>>> they are themselves subject to those very laws. >>> >>> I already gave you the correct equations. They are the same ones Galileo used. If two clocks have different rates, you have to use two sets of Galilean transformation equations. >>> >>> x'=x-vt >>> y'=y >>> z'=z >>> t'=t >>> >>> x = x' - v'n' >>> y = y' >>> z = z' >>> n = n' >>> So we could say that t is the time of a clock on the ground, and n' is the time of a clock in a satellite. It does not matter if the clock in the satellite is faster or slower than the clock on the ground. These equations describe the times of the clocks. >> >> We're back to that. The universe could work that way, but if it did, the >> speed of light would not be the same for all observers. Since >> experiments show that it is the same, those equations cannot be correct. > > There is more than one way to explain what experiments show. > The part of the Lorentz equations that keeps the speed of light at c is the expression (t-vx/c^2). The same expression can be obtained from the Galilean transformation equations. Einstein said he was showing the speed of light to be c by two little equations extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. Using this same principle with two sets of Galilean transformation equations, we obtain x=ct and x'=cn'. Then with regard to velocities, we have > > u=dx/dt > u'=dx'dn' > > x'=x-vt > dx' = dx = vdt > dx' = dt(dx/dt-v) > dx' = dt(u-v) > > n' = (t - vx/c^2) > dn' = (dt - v dx/dt / c^2) > dn' = dt(1 = vu/c^2) > > u' = dx'/dn' > u' = dt(u-v)/dt(1-vx/c^2) > u' = (u-v)/(1-vx/c^2) > > So if two clocks both show light to be traveling at c, then the above equations show velocities according to the times of the two clocks. These velocities are the same velocities Einstein calculated from the Lorentz equations. > >>>> You seem to want clocks to do something else, but I can't see why you'd >>>> want that, other than to fit them into your own theory. Even then, your >>>> theory, as far as I can see, is incapable of telling you what rate to >>>> apply to the clocks. > > I have no need to apply any rates to the clocks. That is determined by experiment. >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Mine is not a theory. Galileo was right about relativity. Sorry to see scientists so confused about it. >>> >> >> Galileo didn't know that the speed of light is the same for all >> observers, a fact that would no doubt have puzzled him greatly. >> >> Sylvia. > What has become increasingly apparent in these discussions is that you have next to no understanding of the theory you're seeking to criticise, and resort to strawman arguments, and outright misrepresentations. Your grasp of the theory is so poor that you don't even understand the explanations given to you, and you just assume they're invalid. A fine example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Even if you don't believe it, you need to study special relativity properly, rather than just using what you've picked up from popular science descriptions of it. Only then will you be in a position either to argue effectively against it, or, more likely, accept it as correct. I'm done with you. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 22:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09db849b-f148-4a00-adfc-0fc521b19a2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427390 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 8:03:16 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/08/2017 11:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 11:15:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 5/08/2017 3:32 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> >>>> it is subject to random changes as a result of earthquakes and similar
> >>>> disturbances that change the Earth's moment of inertia.
> >>>
> >>> Your objections have no relevance. The earth still rotates, notwithstanding your objections. If you really thought one rotation was inaccurate, you could average a sufficiently large number of rotations, but scientists do not want to admit that rotation of the earth was once used to measure time on earth.
> >>
> >> Who are these scientists who don't want want to admit it? Name names.
> >>
> > Well, you would seem to be such a scientist. What is your name?
> >
> >>>>> Having established
> >>>>> this fact, we can also state that there are satellites in orbit
> >>>>> around the earth, not just the moon, but also man made satellites,
> >>>>> some of which have clocks inside them. So now, taking all of these
> >>>>> facts into consideration, the earth is at some position relative to
> >>>>> the sun when the clock on my computer reads 7:21, which is what it
> >>>>> says right now. At the time this clock changed to 7:21, a satellite
> >>>>> with a clock was at some position relative to the earth and sun, and
> >>>>> the clock in that satellite also registered some time. Now the
> >>>>> question that seems to baffle scientists is, What time does the clock
> >>>>> in the satellite register when the clock on my computer changes to
> >>>>> 7:21?
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not a straightforward question, because it is frame dependent. You
> >>>> also haven't specified the zero point, which also raises frame
> >>>> dependencies because the satellite and the clock on the ground are never
> >>>> in the same place. But, leaving aside those issue, and the complexity of
> >>>> the calculations, scientists are not baffled, your question is just
> >>>> ill-specified, and does not have a unique answer.
> >>>
> >>> I do not care about a unique answer. I care about a specific answer. As I said, common everyday people can all see that the sun, earth, and the satellite all have specific positions relative to one another when my computer clock changes to 7:21 a.m. The clock in the satellite registers a specific time when the sun, earth, and satellite are in these specific positions. What is that time?
> >>> The question is no good, you say. Well, that means that you as a scientist will never answer it. Why don't you run along and play with your expensive toys? I already have the equations.
> >>
> >> You're saying that the Earth, sun and satellite are in specific
> >> positions. That's really saying that they occupy those positions
> >> simultaneously. But if they occupy those positions simultaneously in
> >> your frame on Earth, the do not occupy those positions simultaneously in
> >> the frame of the satellite, so you cannot meaningfully ask what time is
> >> shown by the satellite's clock then.
> >>
> > As I said before, you cannot admit that the rotation of the earth was once used to measure time. Your idea is that there is no relationship between the rotation of the earth, the position of the sun, and the orbit of the satellite around the earth. To you it is a function of length contraction.
> >
> >>>> Well, it would appear that it would depend on the rate of the
> >>>>> clock in the satellite. If the clock in the satellite is faster than
> >>>>> the clock on my computer, and at some time in the past the clock in
> >>>>> the satellite read the same as the clock on my computer, then the
> >>>>> clock in the satellite will register a later time than 7:21 when my
> >>>>> computer clock changes to that time. If the clock in the satellite
> >>>>> is slower than the clock in my computer, then the clock in the
> >>>>> satellite will register an earlier time than 7:21 when my computer
> >>>>> changes to 7:21 if the two clocks agreed with each other at some time
> >>>>> in the past. Scientists all say, It is because of a length
> >>>>> contraction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who are all these scientist who say it's because of length contraction?
> >>>> Most of them would recognise this as a problem in general relativity,
> >>>> and wouldn't mention length contraction at all.
> >>>>
> >>> So you are saying General Relativity does not have a length contraction? I say it does. It is opposite to the length contraction in Special Relativity, so all scientists have to do is get the mixture of equations from Special and General Relativity that agree with any specific experiment, and they can say they have solved any problem.
> >>
> >> Special relativity is what General Relativity reduces to in the absence
> >> of gravity, so they cannot possibly say different things in that case.
> >> Where gravity is involved, you have to use the general theory. It's not
> >> a matter of mixing the two together.
> >>>
> > It isn't? So what were Hafele and Keating doing?
> >>>
> >>>> No, it is not because of a length contraction. It is
> >>>>> because of the rates of the clocks. Now, suppose that at some time I
> >>>>> can find a scientist who will admit that clocks can have different
> >>>>> rates. Then, possibly, I would be able to have a conversation with
> >>>>> that scientist. But, as things stand, no such conversation is ever
> >>>>> going to take place. There is no such scientist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As before, you seem to be fixated on this notion of different clock
> >>>> rates. It has long been established that if you take an accurate clock
> >>>> around the world in an aeroplane, and then compare it with a similarly
> >>>> accurate clock that stayed behind, then the clocks will differ (in
> >>>> accordance with the prediction of general relativity). It is also well
> >>>> established that the signals from GPS satellites do not exactly reflect
> >>>> the passage of time at those satellites (and thus the rate of clocks in
> >>>> the satellites), because they are adjusted so as to arrive at the
> >>>> desired rate on the ground.
> >>>
> >>> Well, you almost admitted that the clock in the satellite has a different rate, but not quite. I think we will have to say you will have to try again.
> >>>
> >>>> But you constantly avoid the central question - the function of a clock,
> >>>> which is to measure the passage of time at the location of the clock.
> >>>> Whether the clock is on the ground, in an aeroplane, or in a GPS
> >>>> satellite, this is what the clocks do. In all cases, the clocks measure
> >>>> the passage of time in accordance with the laws of physics - because
> >>>> they are themselves subject to those very laws.
> >>>
> >>> I already gave you the correct equations. They are the same ones Galileo used. If two clocks have different rates, you have to use two sets of Galilean transformation equations.
> >>>
> >>> x'=x-vt
> >>> y'=y
> >>> z'=z
> >>> t'=t
> >>>
> >>> x = x' - v'n'
> >>> y = y'
> >>> z = z'
> >>> n = n'
> >>> So we could say that t is the time of a clock on the ground, and n' is the time of a clock in a satellite. It does not matter if the clock in the satellite is faster or slower than the clock on the ground. These equations describe the times of the clocks.
> >>
> >> We're back to that. The universe could work that way, but if it did, the
> >> speed of light would not be the same for all observers. Since
> >> experiments show that it is the same, those equations cannot be correct.
> >
> > There is more than one way to explain what experiments show.
> > The part of the Lorentz equations that keeps the speed of light at c is the expression (t-vx/c^2). The same expression can be obtained from the Galilean transformation equations. Einstein said he was showing the speed of light to be c by two little equations extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. Using this same principle with two sets of Galilean transformation equations, we obtain x=ct and x'=cn'. Then with regard to velocities, we have
> >
> > u=dx/dt
> > u'=dx'dn'
> >
> > x'=x-vt
> > dx' = dx = vdt
> > dx' = dt(dx/dt-v)
> > dx' = dt(u-v)
> >
> > n' = (t - vx/c^2)
> > dn' = (dt - v dx/dt / c^2)
> > dn' = dt(1 = vu/c^2)
> >
> > u' = dx'/dn'
> > u' = dt(u-v)/dt(1-vx/c^2)
> > u' = (u-v)/(1-vx/c^2)
> >
> > So if two clocks both show light to be traveling at c, then the above equations show velocities according to the times of the two clocks. These velocities are the same velocities Einstein calculated from the Lorentz equations.
> >
> >>>> You seem to want clocks to do something else, but I can't see why you'd
> >>>> want that, other than to fit them into your own theory. Even then, your
> >>>> theory, as far as I can see, is incapable of telling you what rate to
> >>>> apply to the clocks.
> >
> > I have no need to apply any rates to the clocks. That is determined by experiment.
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Mine is not a theory. Galileo was right about relativity. Sorry to see scientists so confused about it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Galileo didn't know that the speed of light is the same for all
> >> observers, a fact that would no doubt have puzzled him greatly.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
>
> What has become increasingly apparent in these discussions is that you
> have next to no understanding of the theory you're seeking to criticise,
> and resort to strawman arguments, and outright misrepresentations. Your
> grasp of the theory is so poor that you don't even understand the
> explanations given to you, and you just assume they're invalid. A fine
> example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
>
> Even if you don't believe it, you need to study special relativity
> properly, rather than just using what you've picked up from popular
> science descriptions of it. Only then will you be in a position either
> to argue effectively against it, or, more likely, accept it as correct.
>
> I'm done with you.
>
> Sylvia.
Very scientific of you. I predicted this a long time ago. Well, here are the correct equations for relativity if you ever decide you are interested in that subject.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web