Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377895 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-04 09:40 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-23 23:42 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 444 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 09:40 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 07:46 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 01:15 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 17:31 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 20:01 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 20:08 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 12:46 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 12:55 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 06:42 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 14:56 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 06:40 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 15:44 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 06:50 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:00 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 07:10 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:18 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 07:25 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:35 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 07:38 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:48 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 07:56 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-06 20:29 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 07:28 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:39 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 08:06 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 16:14 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 08:26 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 17:01 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-06 19:24 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 22:03 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:37 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 04:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:32 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 16:40 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 16:39 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:49 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 18:03 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 11:07 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:32 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 12:38 -0600
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 19:08 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 11:19 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:12 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 11:22 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 19:35 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 11:48 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 11:49 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 12:13 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 21:10 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 23:24 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:07 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 07:18 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 07:30 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:51 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 07:57 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:09 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 08:15 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:32 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 08:38 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:46 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 08:51 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:09 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:21 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:27 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 08:33 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:39 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 08:44 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:49 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 08:56 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 17:02 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 09:13 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 17:20 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 09:27 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 17:31 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:28 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 20:53 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:08 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 17:12 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 09:09 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:23 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 20:56 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:50 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 22:18 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:21 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:07 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:18 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 21:25 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 21:38 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 22:58 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 23:10 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:42 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 23:49 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 00:05 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 00:16 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:30 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 22:51 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 23:22 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 00:00 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 00:12 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:31 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 07:37 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:41 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:42 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 07:51 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:07 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 10:11 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:32 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 10:52 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 19:15 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 11:49 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 12:06 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 12:27 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:35 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 14:13 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 14:43 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:51 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 23:06 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 23:13 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:28 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:40 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 23:53 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 00:01 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 00:40 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 10:14 -0600
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 08:27 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 10:33 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 11:28 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:58 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:48 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 13:04 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 21:54 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 14:11 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:27 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 22:33 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:50 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 22:56 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:17 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 23:21 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:54 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-12 09:00 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:19 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 21:07 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:49 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 13:29 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 07:59 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 16:17 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 09:24 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 16:32 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 09:36 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 16:55 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:07 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 17:56 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 12:42 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 19:59 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 19:10 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:56 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:13 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:26 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 00:14 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-14 17:49 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 10:58 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:16 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:47 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 15:05 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-14 22:29 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:07 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 22:02 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 22:27 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 00:18 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:09 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:21 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:04 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 19:13 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:28 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 19:50 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:18 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 20:24 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:18 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 19:45 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:37 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 21:53 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 22:02 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 15:28 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-15 23:58 -0500
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:59 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 23:12 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 23:48 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 00:31 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:56 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 10:21 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:19 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 12:47 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 13:28 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:19 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 14:33 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 14:35 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 14:51 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:07 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 16:36 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:48 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 15:48 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:53 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 20:30 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 19:51 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 12:41 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:06 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 16:51 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:41 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 00:33 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 22:22 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 00:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 01:06 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 01:17 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 01:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 09:46 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 09:50 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:12 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:09 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:22 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:02 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 07:56 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 13:43 -0500
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:13 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:28 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:06 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:23 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 17:01 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 17:54 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:03 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 22:17 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 06:34 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:03 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 14:14 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 22:28 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:38 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 22:42 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:04 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 23:15 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:19 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 23:24 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:21 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:29 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:30 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 21:15 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:04 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 07:23 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:32 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:33 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 07:50 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:04 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:05 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-07 13:14 -0600
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:05 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:51 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 22:17 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:52 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-08 11:21 -0600
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 21:48 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 13:56 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 16:32 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya jstaredits@gmail.com - 2016-03-08 16:44 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 22:17 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 22:35 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 22:46 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 19:42 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 21:22 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:12 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 14:49 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 08:22 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 08:41 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 09:08 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 09:14 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 09:28 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 17:33 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 09:33 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 10:22 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 10:44 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 11:03 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 11:31 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:08 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 19:28 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 19:38 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 19:44 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:28 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 07:29 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya jstaredits@gmail.com - 2016-03-08 16:10 -0800
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 08:26 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 22:05 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 01:29 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 01:35 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:56 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 15:17 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:47 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 03:46 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 03:58 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 04:50 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:57 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 10:17 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:22 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 10:44 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 18:12 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 18:48 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:15 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 20:51 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 14:15 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:19 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 11:34 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 22:30 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 05:31 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 05:35 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:46 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 12:00 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 05:47 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 05:55 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-20 14:13 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 11:23 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-18 23:03 -0500
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 00:16 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 12:07 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 11:20 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 20:23 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 12:40 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 20:46 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:47 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 21:12 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:16 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 21:33 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 14:12 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 22:20 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 15:33 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:26 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 11:15 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 19:32 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 11:36 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 19:40 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:17 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:31 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 20:48 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:53 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 19:59 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 20:15 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 21:13 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:18 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 19:51 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:04 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 20:17 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:26 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 21:44 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 20:53 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 21:00 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 14:24 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:26 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 20:33 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:40 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 14:11 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 21:25 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 14:36 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 15:37 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 23:18 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 21:10 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 17:17 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:40 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 10:24 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 17:33 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 10:40 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 11:28 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:26 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:32 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:47 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 04:06 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 04:19 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 04:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 04:52 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 05:22 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 05:29 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 05:46 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 06:13 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 06:24 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 06:47 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:27 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 07:44 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:04 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 08:18 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 08:31 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:18 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 18:24 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 10:30 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 17:41 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 10:52 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 19:01 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 11:11 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 19:25 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 19:38 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 11:43 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 11:56 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 20:41 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 12:59 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 21:45 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 14:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 18:15 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 11:20 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 19:35 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 11:37 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 19:45 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 12:54 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 04:53 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 05:21 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-23 13:04 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 06:23 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-23 14:14 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 07:34 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-23 14:41 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 07:51 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-23 14:55 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 09:38 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-23 17:07 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 13:48 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-23 17:08 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:30 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 19:22 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 22:53 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 15:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 23:42 +0100
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbvied$33u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378652 |
JanPB wrote: >> >> > I thought you were an EE? A (static) charge is surrounded by an >> >> > electric field E, it's called Coulomb's law. So T =/= 0 there. >> >> >> >> He said there was no charges inthere. >> > >> > But the electric field is there. Hence T =/= 0 there. >> >> No is not, in Physics what you have is just a Potential, assuming a >> Conservative Field. No Tensors, yet, unless you put something else in >> there. > > You calculate the energy-momentum tensor due to electromagnetic field > (whether it's given by a potential or not), the formulas can be found in > any decent electrodynamics textbook (like Griffiths or Panofsky & > Phillips or Jackson or...). They are also here: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80% 93energy_tensor#Definition > > (And please do NOT confuse this tensor with the electromagnetic tensor: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor#Definition > The two are different. You clearly don't understand what you read, sir. Is not about "calculate", since that calculation is taken as in a certain context. I ask you again, you have a particle, a charge particle (or whatever body) in empty vacuum space. How would you ever know you have a field of tensors or anything around it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 15:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3958e2d2-7e49-4f08-90da-aee6196a71cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378653 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:56:18 PM UTC-8, Luigi Durante wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> >> > I thought you were an EE? A (static) charge is surrounded by an > >> >> > electric field E, it's called Coulomb's law. So T =/= 0 there. > >> >> > >> >> He said there was no charges inthere. > >> > > >> > But the electric field is there. Hence T =/= 0 there. > >> > >> No is not, in Physics what you have is just a Potential, assuming a > >> Conservative Field. No Tensors, yet, unless you put something else in > >> there. > > > > You calculate the energy-momentum tensor due to electromagnetic field > > (whether it's given by a potential or not), the formulas can be found in > > any decent electrodynamics textbook (like Griffiths or Panofsky & > > Phillips or Jackson or...). They are also here: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80% > 93energy_tensor#Definition > > > > (And please do NOT confuse this tensor with the electromagnetic tensor: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor#Definition > > The two are different. > > You clearly don't understand what you read, sir. Is not about "calculate", > since that calculation is taken as in a certain context. I ask you again, > you have a particle, a charge particle (or whatever body) in empty vacuum > space. How would you ever know you have a field of tensors or anything > around it? Because a test body would be affected (attracted or repelled). This is not a contradiction (as you seem to think), look up the definition of electromagnetic field (or even electrostatic as is the case here). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 23:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbvjt1$76d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378659 |
JanPB wrote: >> You clearly don't understand what you read, sir. Is not about >> "calculate", >> since that calculation is taken as in a certain context. I ask you >> again, you have a particle, a charge particle (or whatever body) in >> empty vacuum space. How would you ever know you have a field of tensors >> or anything around it? > > Because a test body would be affected (attracted or repelled). This is Ahaaa, this is it, Sir, "a test body"!! or test charge particle. But mister Koobee said there only one charge, and no test particle(s). > not a contradiction (as you seem to think), look up the definition of > electromagnetic field (or even electrostatic as is the case here). I don't really feel this need.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 16:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <27d784fd-0964-48b0-9aed-07f3f58779c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378661 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 3:21:09 PM UTC-8, Luigi Durante wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> You clearly don't understand what you read, sir. Is not about > >> "calculate", > >> since that calculation is taken as in a certain context. I ask you > >> again, you have a particle, a charge particle (or whatever body) in > >> empty vacuum space. How would you ever know you have a field of tensors > >> or anything around it? > > > > Because a test body would be affected (attracted or repelled). This is > > Ahaaa, this is it, Sir, "a test body"!! or test charge particle. But > mister Koobee said there only one charge, and no test particle(s). Check how EM fields are defined in the classical theory. I cannot teach you the basics here but the bottom line is a test body is in a sense implicit in the Einstein equation. Just like in the definition of the electric field E, the test body is implicit (in the form of F/q (force on the test body divided by its charge)) so you end up with BOTH "empty" space surrounding a given charged object AND a _nonzero_ field E around it. In GR this field appears on the right-hand side of the Einstein equation. > > not a contradiction (as you seem to think), look up the definition of > > electromagnetic field (or even electrostatic as is the case here). > > I don't really feel this need. Obviously. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 09:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc0lrl$19dv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378673 |
JanPB wrote: >> > Because a test body would be affected (attracted or repelled). This >> > is >> >> Ahaaa, this is it, Sir, "a test body"!! or test charge particle. But >> mister Koobee said there only one charge, and no test particle(s). > > Check how EM fields are defined in the classical theory. You still don't get it. This is about Physics, not definitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 17:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <205206d5-5c1c-4043-86c7-5e508ddd0eeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378691 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-8, Luigi Durante wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> > Because a test body would be affected (attracted or repelled). This > >> > is > >> > >> Ahaaa, this is it, Sir, "a test body"!! or test charge particle. But > >> mister Koobee said there only one charge, and no test particle(s). > > > > Check how EM fields are defined in the classical theory. > > You still don't get it. This is about Physics, not definitions. Again, the point is that a (static) charge is surrounded by an electrostatic field E. This means the energy-momentum tensor in the area surrounding the charge is nonzero. That's why the "complaint" that the Reissner-Nordstrom metric does not satisfy the equation Ricci = 0 is irrelevant. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 21:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dff0ec75-b22b-4149-aa56-733fdf077b51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378772 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > Again, the point is that a (static) charge is surrounded by an > electrostatic field E. This means the energy-momentum tensor in > the area surrounding the charge is nonzero. Again, Jan the relativistic moron is wrong. The energy momentum tensor is strictly a function of the mass or the charge density. In vacuum, both the mass and the charge density are null. Thus, the energy momentum tensor for either is null as well. This understanding is within the domain of Newtonian physics. Einstein dingleberries are getting fvcking dumber and dumber from one generation to the next. <shrug> > That's why the "complaint" that the Reissner-Nordstrom metric > does not satisfy the equation Ricci = 0 is irrelevant. The Reissner-Nordstrom metric does not satisfy null Einstein nor null Ricci tensors. It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the charge are both null in vacuum. Besides, electromagnetism does not affect spacetime curvature. The metric is strictly a description of how curved up spacetime is. Jan the relativistic moron is just a relativistic moron. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 22:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebd0aa19-70ea-4beb-9f8f-8344a479e29f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378783 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:07:55 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:20:01 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > Again, the point is that a (static) charge is surrounded by an > > electrostatic field E. This means the energy-momentum tensor in > > the area surrounding the charge is nonzero. > > Again, Jan the relativistic moron is wrong. The energy momentum tensor is strictly a function of the mass or the charge density. No. It's a function of E and B. For e.g. Minkowski space see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor#Definition > This understanding is within the domain of Newtonian physics. Einstein dingleberries are getting fvcking dumber and dumber from one generation to the next. <shrug> > > > That's why the "complaint" that the Reissner-Nordstrom metric > > does not satisfy the equation Ricci = 0 is irrelevant. > > The Reissner-Nordstrom metric does not satisfy null Einstein nor null Ricci tensors. I's not meant to. > It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the charge are both null in vacuum. Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, hence energy-momentum. > Besides, electromagnetism does not affect spacetime curvature. It does since it has energy-momentum. Haven't you studied Maxwell's stress and Poynting vector? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc3q0k$1a0b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378785 |
JanPB wrote: >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the charge >> are both null in vacuum. > > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, hence > energy-momentum. But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test particle (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is completely unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, something you pretend you know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd183c9f-b872-44b5-a524-5b02f5d27986@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378814 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the charge > >> are both null in vacuum. > > > > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, hence > > energy-momentum. > > But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test particle > (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is completely > unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, something you > pretend you know? A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about what relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your lie was wrong and get away with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 16:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc43r7$1o8v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378820 |
David Waite wrote: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: >> JanPB wrote: >> >> >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the charge >> >> are both null in vacuum. >> > >> > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, hence >> > energy-momentum. >> >> But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test particle >> (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is completely >> unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, something you >> pretend you know? > > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about what relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your lie was wrong and get away with it. Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge will affect the geometry of space time in any way. Get over it, you lost your tensors, as you are pretty much beknown to do so. http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/480x240/public/3267418176.png?itok=vsrmQ-yQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5f4f24f-7992-4000-b03f-fe41e804cd5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378827 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:17:48 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > David Waite wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > >> JanPB wrote: > >> > >> >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the charge > >> >> are both null in vacuum. > >> > > >> > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, hence > >> > energy-momentum. > >> > >> But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test particle > >> (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is completely > >> unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, something you > >> pretend you know? > > > > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about what > relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your lie was > wrong and get away with it. > > Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge will > affect the geometry of space time in any way. You're just a crank, so why should I care if you're closed minded?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc44mo$1phv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378828 |
David Waite wrote: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:17:48 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: >> David Waite wrote: >> >> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: >> >> JanPB wrote: >> >> >> >> >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the charge >> >> >> are both null in vacuum. >> >> > >> >> > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, hence >> >> > energy-momentum. >> >> >> >> But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test particle >> >> (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is completely >> >> unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, something you >> >> pretend you know? >> > >> > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about what >> relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your lie was >> wrong and get away with it. >> >> Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge will >> affect the geometry of space time in any way. > > You're just a crank, so why should I care if you're closed minded? No, the crank is you, fat boy. This must come not as surprise to you, a bigmouth incapable to handle tensors with more than 2 indices. Only post something when I can learn something from you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b3d7975-ebd6-4de0-919e-f312093169ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378830 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > David Waite wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:17:48 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > >> David Waite wrote: > >> > >> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > >> >> JanPB wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the > charge > >> >> >> are both null in vacuum. > >> >> > > >> >> > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, hence > >> >> > energy-momentum. > >> >> > >> >> But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test > particle > >> >> (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is > completely > >> >> unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, > something you > >> >> pretend you know? > >> > > >> > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about > what > >> relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your lie was > >> wrong and get away with it. > >> > >> Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge will > >> affect the geometry of space time in any way. > > > > You're just a crank, so why should I care if you're closed minded? > > No, the crank is you, fat boy. Being fat would make one a crank huh, yeah you're a crank, anyway, this is how I'm built, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Txg5wsPH5o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc461o$1ro6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378834 |
David Waite wrote: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: >> David Waite wrote: >> >> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:17:48 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow >> > wrote: >> >> David Waite wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> JanPB wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the >> charge >> >> >> >> are both null in vacuum. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, >> >> >> > hence energy-momentum. >> >> >> >> >> >> But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test >> particle >> >> >> (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is >> completely >> >> >> unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, >> something you >> >> >> pretend you know? >> >> > >> >> > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about >> what >> >> relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your lie >> >> was wrong and get away with it. >> >> >> >> Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge >> >> will affect the geometry of space time in any way. >> > >> > You're just a crank, so why should I care if you're closed minded? >> >> No, the crank is you, fat boy. > > Being fat would make one a crank huh, yeah you're a crank, anyway, this > is how I'm built, > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Txg5wsPH5o You just spread with tensors around you. Give me something I can learn from you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e684ba2b-e3a3-470d-a90c-6ad4c1d109a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378838 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:55:26 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > David Waite wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:32:27 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > >> David Waite wrote: > >> > >> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:17:48 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow > >> > wrote: > >> >> David Waite wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> JanPB wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the > >> charge > >> >> >> >> are both null in vacuum. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, > >> >> >> > hence energy-momentum. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test > >> particle > >> >> >> (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is > >> completely > >> >> >> unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, > >> something you > >> >> >> pretend you know? > >> >> > > >> >> > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about > >> what > >> >> relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your lie > >> >> was wrong and get away with it. > >> >> > >> >> Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge > >> >> will affect the geometry of space time in any way. > >> > > >> > You're just a crank, so why should I care if you're closed minded? > >> > >> No, the crank is you, fat boy. > > > > Being fat would make one a crank huh, yeah you're a crank, anyway, this > > is how I'm built, > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Txg5wsPH5o > > You just spread with tensors around you. Give me something I can learn > from you. If tensors are over your head, which they are, then probably anything I would have an interest in explaining is over your head as well anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc49ks$1e2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378840 |
David Waite wrote: >> > Being fat would make one a crank huh, yeah you're a crank, anyway, >> > this is how I'm built, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Txg5wsPH5o >> >> You just spread with tensors around you. Give me something I can learn >> from you. > > If tensors are over your head, which they are, then probably anything I > would have an interest in explaining is over your head as well anyway. I've been kicked out from kindergarten because of tensors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c618bda-df9a-4d60-8ef5-b455d7ca0182@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378827 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:17:48 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > David Waite wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote: > >> JanPB wrote: > >> > >> >> It is because the energy momentum tensor for the mass and the charge > >> >> are both null in vacuum. > >> > > >> > Space surrounding a charge has electromagnetic field in it, hence > >> > energy-momentum. > >> > >> But there is NO tensors and energy-momentum, till you put a test particle > >> (charge!!) in it. Koobee is 100% correct, the spacetime is completely > >> unaffected by an ELECTRIC charge. You don't know relativity, something you > >> pretend you know? > > > > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about what > relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your lie was > wrong and get away with it. > > Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge will > affect the geometry of space time in any way. It doesn't matter whether you are convinced or not. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc4grl$cq1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378866 |
JanPB wrote: >> > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about >> > what relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your >> > lie was wrong and get away with it. >> >> Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge will >> affect the geometry of space time in any way. > > It doesn't matter whether you are convinced or not. How should I understand this, your contribution to this discussion. If you have references, let me see, saying that electricity and electric fields are modelling the geometry of spacetime. Only the mass attribute of the matter/black holes are affecting this geometry. Is this place a kindergarten?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 19:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae5ff335-181d-40cd-82fe-950c6d37d234@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378868 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:59:53 PM UTC-7, Iephthae Sparrow wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> > A straw man argument isn't a valid one. You don't get to lie about
> >> > what relativity says then say that relativity is wrong because your
> >> > lie was wrong and get away with it.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. You are not going to convince me that an electric charge will
> >> affect the geometry of space time in any way.
> >
> > It doesn't matter whether you are convinced or not.
>
> How should I understand this, your contribution to this discussion. If you
> have references, let me see, saying that electricity and electric fields
> are modelling the geometry of spacetime. Only the mass attribute of the
> matter/black holes are affecting this geometry. Is this place a
> kindergarten?
Any textbook on general relativity will do. It specifies the Einstein equation which says
that, at every event:
traceler-Ricci = 8 pi (energy-momentum tensor)
Electromagnetic field F defines its energy-momentum T (see Wikipedia). If F is nonzero,
so is T.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web