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 | 2016-03-26 20:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 479 — 24 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 Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 12:21 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 07:40 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 15:10 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 09:12 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 16:36 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-24 19:25 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:50 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 12:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-25 00:12 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 06:57 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-25 07:20 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 07:53 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-25 22:43 +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
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 16:20 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-24 00:14 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:01 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-24 19:22 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:42 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-24 19:54 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 12:20 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 12:38 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-25 00:02 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 11:10 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-25 22:46 +0100
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 16:14 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 00:23 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-25 07:25 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Bojana Kudryavtseva <bojkud@rtyn56h67i.org> - 2016-03-25 14:41 +0000
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 12:28 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 01:22 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-26 08:07 -0700
Re: Koobee Vs Vaidya JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 20:14 -0700
Page 17 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 24 Next page →
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 05:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebbd6841-151e-46ef-bdbc-b6e93de594b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379405 |
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:30:37 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, March 17, 2016, David Waite wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > ** L = (R / k + ρ) √(- det([g])) > > > > > Where > > > > > ** R = Ricci scalar > > > ** ρ = mass density > > > The Cosmological constant can easily be part of the Lagrangian of > > > mass, but if you want to separate it out of the Lagrangian of mass, > > > that is OK but not necessary. As I said I would be talking over your head. No dumb nut, adding a constant to the right of R as you did above is NOT adding both a cosmological constant and a mass density of other matter. It is ONLY adding a cosmological constant. In order for something added to the right of R to be something other than a cosmological constant it absolutely can not be a constant. When you added a constant ρ to the right of R and wrongly called it the mass density of other matter all you actually did was give it a cosmological constant. And as I said, but went over Koobee's head the closest thing to having the condition on the stress-energy tensor that he insanely asserted, that T^i_j = delta^i_j, would be to move the cosmological constant term to the right hand side of the field equations and interpret it as the stress-energy tensor of dark energy, and even then as Tom Roberts pointed out, the units are still wrong for Koobee's assertion. > Nordstrom was the first to suggest the null Ricci tensor is the general from of the Laplace equation which means the following is the Lagrangian. > ** L_Nordstrom = (R / k) √(- det([g])) No dumb nut, the Ricci tensor is not null in general, nor ever was in general relativity. If it was you WOULD NOT HAVE AN R THERE, because the Ricci=scalar would always be zero, IDIOT. You're L_Nordstrom nonsense WOULD BE ZERO. Now in vacuum, meaning no electromagnetic fields either, its zero, and in the presence of fields comprised only of massless particles the Ricci-SCALAR is zero, but that's the only sense and the only cases in which it would be null. In the presence of electromagnetic fields its not zero and in the presence of matter comprised of massive particles the Ricci-scalar isn't even zero either. Its just not in general null, nut. > ** L_Reissner = (R / k + ρ + Q) √(- det([g])) > > Where > > ** Q = electromagnetic Lagrangian of sorts > > Man, the Einstein dingleberries are clever or what? Adding this electromagnetic Lagrangian, the mystic part of classical electromagnetism can now affect the curvature of spacetime. Dumb nut, not only did I already correct you in pointing out that you can't put a constant ρ there and call it mass density because as a constant you actually turn out to be adding merely a cosmological constant and NOTHING ELSE, but the standard electromagnetic Lagrange density its called, not Lagrangian of sorts, has been standard general relativity as long as general relativity has been standard and just because its over your head doesn't make it mystical. Yeah, it contributes to how spacetime is curved otherwise it wouldn't have yield a newer independent exact solution to the field equations after Schwarzschild's, the Reissner-Nordsrom solution. But at least you're starting to get it through that thick cro-magnon skull that its standard, not just me doing it. Damn you're slow. >Has any experiment shown that electromagnetism can produce this electromagnetic time dilation similar to gravitational time dilation? It wouldn't be a dilation actually but a contraction. Note the sign difference on the two terms, idiot. > When cornered, none of these worshippers can produce a single differential equation out of the 10. It is all manmade and fraudulence against science. No dumb nut, I DID, you just didn't understand what you were seeing at the link https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m with how I have worked out the solution for myself posted there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 05:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1be6802-8390-4da8-aaba-78e67307568a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379405 |
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:30:37 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Case closed. You do realize that, that is a statement that you are done making arguments, Ok wait, you're an idiot, so your rambling phrases whose meanings you don't know and have no intention of being done making arguments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07489b8b-e7a5-448d-83e1-95bbfc663f16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379427 |
On Thursday, March 18, 2016, David Waite barked: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > ** L = (R / k + ρ) √(- det([g])) > > > Where > > > ** R = Ricci scalar > > ** ρ = mass density > > ** k = constant > > ** det([g]) = determinant of the matrix [g] > > ** [g] = matrix that represents the metric > > > The Cosmological constant can easily be part of the Lagrangian of > > mass, but if you want to separate it out of the Lagrangian of mass, > > that is OK but not necessary. <shrug> > [David Waite’s barking snipped] Here is the proof to what Koobee Wublee is saying. The field equations can be derived by taking the partial derivative of the above Lagrangian with respect to each non-null element of the inverse of the metric. The result is: ** [R] – R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2 Or ** [R] – R [g] / 2 = (k’ ρ - 2 Λ) [g] / 2 Or ** [R] – R [g] / 2 + Λ [g] = k’ ρ [g] / 2 Where ** k = ρ + 2 Λ > > √(- det([g])) must be part of the Lagrangian, or else, you will > > not be able to derive the field equations. <shrug> > [David Waite’s barking snipped] √(- det([g])) is what results in the trace term. <shrug> > > How does David Waite figure how the Lagrangian would look like > > including this electromagnetic stress tensor thing? <shrug> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m The 4th equation involving the Einstein tensor is just wrong. See the following link. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/KbPmC4vUDXI/_DL5gHLgAwAJ Keep barking. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe5f8c66-41ed-473c-8d8b-e1e586bd2953@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379450 |
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 12:46:58 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, March 18, 2016, David Waite barked: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > ** L = (R / k + ρ) √(- det([g])) > > > > > Where > > > > > ** R = Ricci scalar > > > ** ρ = mass density > > > The Cosmological constant can easily be part of the Lagrangian of > > > mass, but if you want to separate it out of the Lagrangian of mass, > > > that is OK but not necessary. > > Here is the proof to what Koobee Wublee is saying. No dumb nut. You were already proven wrong, As I said I would be talking over your head. No dumb nut, adding a constant to the right of R as you did above is NOT adding both a cosmological constant and a mass density of other matter. It is ONLY adding a cosmological constant. In order for something added to the right of R to be something other than a cosmological constant it absolutely can not be a constant. When you added a constant ρ to the right of R and wrongly called it the mass density of other matter all you actually did was give it a cosmological constant. And as I said, but went over Koobee's head the closest thing to having the condition on the stress-energy tensor that he insanely asserted, that T^i_j = delta^i_j, would be to move the cosmological constant term to the right hand side of the field equations and interpret it as the stress-energy tensor of dark energy, and even then as Tom Roberts pointed out, the units are still wrong for Koobee's assertion. So get over it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b21a864c-c513-4eb7-ad77-c8bc8624dcaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379450 |
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 12:46:58 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > ** [R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2 And idiot, I already explicitly told you why you were wrong there, In order for whatever you're adding to the right of R to be some other matter, it CAN'T be a constant. And if its not a constant, meaning you have any other matter than just a cosmological constant then you absolutely DO NOT get T^i_j proportional delta^i_j as you insanely claim. Since I already told you that you didn't know anything about the subject and were making up crap that was wrong here you are lying at this point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ceef9e9c-3471-4710-b8ef-722e48709ebc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379594 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 5:47:59 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 12:46:58 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > ** [R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2 > And idiot, I already explicitly told you why you were wrong there, In order for whatever you're adding to the right of R to be some other matter, it CAN'T be a constant. And if its not a constant, meaning you have any other matter than just a cosmological constant then you absolutely DO NOT get T^i_j proportional delta^i_j as you insanely claim. Since I already told you that you didn't know anything about the subject and were making up crap that was wrong here you are lying at this point. I'm realizing that even that is going to be over your head, so I'll try putting it more simply. If what you added to the right of R in the Lagrange density is not a constant, then what you wrote for the right hand side of your equation [R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2 is absolutely WRONG. And if it was a constant, the all you did was add a cosmological constant. Just subtract it to the other side to see that, moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncmb6h$123s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379595 |
David Waite wrote: >> And idiot, I already explicitly told you why you were wrong there, In >> order for whatever you're adding to the right of R to be some other >> matter, it CAN'T be a constant. And if its not a constant, meaning you >> have any other matter than just a cosmological constant then you >> absolutely DO NOT get T^i_j proportional delta^i_j as you insanely >> claim. Since I already told you that you didn't know anything about the >> subject and were making up crap that was wrong here you are lying at >> this point. > > I'm realizing that even that is going to be over your head, so I'll try > putting it more simply. If what you added to the right of R in the > Lagrange density is not a constant, then what you wrote for the right > hand side of your equation [R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2 is absolutely > WRONG. And if it was a constant, the all you did was add a cosmological > constant. Just subtract it to the other side to see that, moron. You actually realized you did an unforgivable mistake, and are now just trying recovering it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa1287c2-d669-47d6-a6c4-927f059f0b13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379598 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 7:13:40 AM UTC-7, cryptoclearance wrote: > David Waite wrote: > > >> And idiot, I already explicitly told you why you were wrong there, In > >> order for whatever you're adding to the right of R to be some other > >> matter, it CAN'T be a constant. And if its not a constant, meaning you > >> have any other matter than just a cosmological constant then you > >> absolutely DO NOT get T^i_j proportional delta^i_j as you insanely > >> claim. Since I already told you that you didn't know anything about the > >> subject and were making up crap that was wrong here you are lying at > >> this point. > > > > I'm realizing that even that is going to be over your head, so I'll try > > putting it more simply. If what you added to the right of R in the > > Lagrange density is not a constant, then what you wrote for the right > > hand side of your equation [R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2 is absolutely > > WRONG. And if it was a constant, the all you did was add a cosmological > > constant. Just subtract it to the other side to see that, moron. > > You actually realized you did an unforgivable mistake, and are now just > trying recovering it. Yeah keep on making up that little reality of yours as lunatics do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 23:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_tCdnQznCYrgUnHLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379298 |
On 3/17/16 3/17/16 12:47 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> ** L = (R / k + ρ) √(- det([g])) > > √(- det([g])) must be part of the Lagrangian, or else, you will not be able > to derive the field equations. <shrug> This is just plain wrong. Earlier you were challenged to explain where the factor "√(- det([g]))" came from. YOUR GUESS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. Here's a hint where it really comes from: First remember that what is conventionally called "the Lagrangian" (as you did above) is really a Lagrangian DENSITY that must be integrated over the manifold. Second, note that in locally-inertial coordinates that factor is 1. Then consider how an integral over spacetime will change under a change in coordinates. Here's a second hint: what is the volume form for spacetime, expressed in arbitrary coordinates? WARNING: The Wikipedia article on "Volume Form" has a critical misprint in the relevant section. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 00:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7dfa2ae-de16-4764-af79-cb8810f63f75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379492 |
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:03:12 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > ** L = (R / k + ρ) √(- det([g])) > > > √(- det([g])) must be part of the Lagrangian, or else, you will not > > be able to derive the field equations. <shrug> > > This is just plain wrong. Tom has not ever demonstrated the capability of deriving the field equations. All Tom knows about the field equations is mysticism. <shrug> > Earlier you were challenged to explain where the factor "√(- det([g]))" > came from. YOUR GUESS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. No, it was Jan the relativistic moron who suggested that Koobee Wublee does not know this "√(- det([g]))" thing. Koobee Wublee has not responded. So, how can Tom claim Koobee Wublee to be wrong? Tom is really fvcked up. <shrug> > First remember that what is conventionally called "the Lagrangian" > (as you did above) is really a Lagrangian DENSITY that must be > integrated over the manifold. There is no such thing as the Lagrangian density. The Lagrangian is the density of the action where: ** Action = Integral of the Lagrangian > Second, note that in locally-inertial coordinates that factor is 1. > Then consider how an integral over spacetime will change under a > change in coordinates. Whatever, Tom. The fact is that this Einstein-Hilbert action is observer dependent because of this very thing that comes back to haunt the Einstein dingleberries, √(- det([g])). That means the Riemann and the Ricci tensors are both observer dependent. <shrug> > Here's a second hint: what is the volume form for spacetime, expressed in > arbitrary coordinates? Ahahaha... It looks like Koobee Wublee has the last laugh. Yes, any description of the spacetime of the religion of relativity must be according to the observer’s choice of coordinate system. Ahahaha... Koobee Wublee just cannot stop laughing. Ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e92ae3e6-b0f1-483e-8ff3-4d37a602023c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379500 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:16:27 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > There is no such thing as the Lagrangian density. More proof that you don't know anything about the subject being just a crank. As I said, the equation for that Lagrange density is as I already told you, using L for lack of a better script, L=(c⁴/16πG)(R-2λ)+L_matter where L_matter is the lagrange density of whatever fields matter and yes even electromagnetism that contributes to the stress-energy tensor. Look it up dumb nut.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377895 |
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:40:04 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
> ds²=dct'²-dr²-r²dθ²-r²sin²θdφ²-{(2GM/rc²)-[kG(q/rc²)²]+(λr²/3)}(dr±dct')²
> where M is any function of u
> u=r±ct'
> This is the Vaidya solution expanded to also include charge and a nonzero cosmological constant.
> λ=0, q=0 is the Vaidya solution.
> λ=0, M=constant is the Reissner-Nordstrom solution.
> M=0, q=0 is the DeSitter solution.
> λ=0, q=0, M=constant is the Schwarzschild solution.
> You may not immediately recognize those cases, because the coordinates used aren't what you're used to using, but its merely a matter of transformation to show that its so. I put a prime on the time because that is what's not the standard Schwarzschild coordinate.
> So here is the Challenge to Koobee or his anti-relativity crank following. If you are so sure that you know anything about relativity tell me what for this spacetime do you get for
> g^µ_ν?
> For anyone even remotely familiar with general relativity, this should be a no brainer!
Posting maybe a little buzzed, but I'll try to still be coherent.
So lets recap what we've learned here. I issued a challenge to Koobee or any of his anti-relativity crank herbert dingle worshipers, i.e. dingleberrys, To find for the exact solutions to Einstein's field equations
ds²=dct'²-dr²-r²dθ²-r²sin²θdφ²-{(2GM/rc²)-[kG(q/rc²)²]+(λr²/3)}(dr±dct')²
what was g^µ_ν.
Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that for ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,
g^µ_ν=g^µ^κg_κ_ν=δ^µ_ν
and yet Koobee and none of the anti-relativity cranks could answer it. The only people that could were people who weren't anti relativity
So anyway, Koobee was so embarassed that he couldn't answer the question that he decided to obfuscate the thread to hide that he couldn't answer by writing a bunch of pseudo-mathematical jibberish in hopes that the idiot anti-relativity crank followings eyes would just glaze over with stupidity and not see through the smoke that he didn't know crap about the subject and in so doing made the utterly insane assertion that for any rank two tensor
T^i_j = delta^i_j.
which if he were right about he damn well would have been able to answer the challenge!
Anyway, I gave him counter examples of the stress-energy tensor for vacuum
(0 0 0 0)
T^µ^ν = (0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
and the stress-energy tensor for the EM radiation yielding Vaidya's solution
(List order ct',r,θ,φ)
((dM/du)c²/(4πr²) (-/+)(dM/du)c²/(4πr²) 0 0)
T^µ^ν=((-/+)(dM/du)c²/(4πr²) (dM/du)c²/(4πr²) 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
ds²=dct'²-dr²-r²dθ²-r²sin²θdφ²-(2GM/rc²)(dr±dct')²
which totally went over his head. He wen't on to write down a Largrangian and make the insane assertion that it was the general lagrangian for general relativity, L = (R / k + ρ) √(- det([g])) and made the assertion that the stress-energy tensor that corresponded to this was [g}, that Einstein's field equations are
[R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2
I plainly told him that this crap was absolutely WRONG. That he might as well write bing tittle bop and pretend that has physical meaning. First of all the full Lagrange density for general relativity is(found a better ascii script),
Ḽ=(c⁴/16πG)(R-2λ)+Ḽ_matter where Ḽ_matter is the lagrange density of whatever matter or fields the spacetime has, including electromagnetism. I also explained to him that the ONLY way his lagrangian yields T^i_j proportional to delta^i_j is if the ρ of his crap lagrangian was a constant, but that for ρ being a constant he actually does NOT add any mass density of any other matter or fields, but a mere cosmological constant. And I had already explained to him that the closest thing he could get to his insane condition that
T^i_j = delta^i_j
was to move the cosmological constant term to the right hand side of the field equations and interpret that as the stress-energy tensor of dark energy, and even then as Tom Roberts had pointed out, his units were still wrong.
And, if ρ were not a constant so that it may actually represent some other matter than a cosmological constant, then you absolutely do NOT get
T^i_j proportional to delta^i_j and in fact the term on the right hand side of his field equations
[R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2
is absolutely WRONG. You just plain don't get that AT ALL.
So here what I think we've proven is that Koobee as well as his anti-relativity crank fellows here don't know crap about the subject matter and as such have no idea what they're talking about. As such it can not be anything rational driving their anti-relativity crankdom, and what I am left to believe is that their motives are irrational motives like jealousy and racism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 20:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncphno$dng$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379715 |
Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com... |Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that for ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,\ But why should anyone sane learn this worthless mumble of an insane crazie? Just taking a look at his mad prophecies of clocks is enough to know he had no contact with any reality. Samely as you and your fellow idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29566b88-c65d-41c1-a0ae-68874ddd7450@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379717 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com...
>
> |Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that for
> ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,\
>
> But why should anyone sane learn this worthless mumble of an insane crazie?
So in short you weren't able to answer the challenge and as such don't have anything to contribute. You should reread the posting until you understand it before rambling any further cankdom. Posting maybe a little buzzed, but I'll try to still be coherent.
So lets recap what we've learned here. I issued a challenge to Koobee or any of his anti-relativity crank Herbert Dingle worshipers, i.e. dingleberrys, To find for the exact solutions to Einstein's field equations
ds²=dct'²-dr²-r²dθ²-r²sin²θdφ²-{(2GM/rc²)-[kG(q/rc²)²]+(λr²/3)}(dr±dct')²
what was g^µ_ν.
Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that for ANY metric, exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,
g^µ_ν=g^µ^κg_κ_ν=δ^µ_ν
and yet Koobee and none of the anti-relativity cranks could answer it. The only people that could were people who weren't anti-relativity
So anyway, Koobee was so embarrassed that he couldn't answer the question that he decided to obfuscate the thread to hide that he couldn't answer by writing a bunch of pseudo-mathematical jibberish in hopes that the idiot anti-relativity crank following's eyes would just glaze over with stupidity and not see through the smoke that he didn't know crap about the subject and in so doing made the utterly insane assertion that for any rank two tensor
T^i_j = delta^i_j.
which if he were right about he damn well would have been able to answer the challenge!
Anyway, I gave him counter examples of the stress-energy tensor for vacuum
(0 0 0 0)
T^µ^ν = (0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
and the stress-energy tensor for the EM radiation yielding Vaidya's solution
(List order ct',r,θ,φ)
((dM/du)c²/(4πr²) (-/+)(dM/du)c²/(4πr²) 0 0)
T^µ^ν=((-/+)(dM/du)c²/(4πr²) (dM/du)c²/(4πr²) 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
ds²=dct'²-dr²-r²dθ²-r²sin²θdφ²-(2GM/rc²)(dr±dct')²
which totally went over his head.
He wen't on to write down a Lagrangian and make the insane assertion that it was the general Lagrangian for general relativity, L = (R / k + ρ) √(- det([g])) and made the assertion that the stress-energy tensor that corresponded to this was [g], that Einstein's field equations are
[R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2
I plainly told him that this crap was absolutely WRONG. That he might as well write bing tittle bop and pretend that has physical meaning. First of all the full Lagrange density for general relativity is(found a better ascii script),
Ḽ=(c⁴/16πG)(R-2λ)+Ḽ_matter where Ḽ_matter is the Lagrange density of whatever matter or fields the spacetime has, including electromagnetism. I also explained to him that the ONLY way his Lagrangian yields T^i_j proportional to delta^i_j is if the ρ of his crap Lagrangian was a constant, but that for ρ being a constant he actually does NOT add any mass density of any other matter or fields, but a mere cosmological constant. And I had already explained to him that the closest thing he could get to his insane condition that
T^i_j = delta^i_j
was to move the cosmological constant term to the right hand side of the field equations and interpret that as the stress-energy tensor of dark energy, and even then as Tom Roberts had pointed out, his units were still wrong.
And, if ρ were not a constant so that it may actually represent some other matter than a cosmological constant, then you absolutely do NOT get
T^i_j proportional to delta^i_j and in fact the term on the right hand side of his field equations
[R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2
is absolutely WRONG. You just plain don't get that AT ALL.
So here what I think we've proven is that Koobee as well as his anti-relativity crank fellows here don't know crap about the subject matter and as such have no idea what they're talking about. As such it can not be anything rational driving their anti-relativity crankdom, and what I am left to believe is that their motives are irrational motives like jealousy and racism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 20:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncpj3d$f0i$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379719 |
Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:29566b88-c65d-41c1-a0ae-68874ddd7450@googlegroups.com... On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com... > > |Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that > for > ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,\ > > But why should anyone sane learn this worthless mumble of an insane > crazie? |So in short you weren't able to answer the challenge and Said a complete idiot unable to answer any real question, unable to accept BASIC definitions of Great Guru he is worshipping, rejecting the oldest and one of most trustful piece of mathematic just because his guru decided it's no fun anymore and covering his lack of any arguments with yelling "YOU RACIST!!!".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <171c3b4c-d99f-42cd-a536-a5bd8a91201d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379717 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com...
>
> |Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that for
> ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,\
>
> But why should anyone sane learn this worthless mumble of an insane crazie?
You cannot say this is "worthless mumble of an insane crazie" unless you
understand it.
Since you don't understand it, your argument doesn't exist,
it's just a string of words, like "I am the queen of England".
Also your choice of words betrays at once what your true interest is:
it is belittling something that:
1. you don't understand,
2. nevertheless you'd like to understand it (for some odd reason you consider
physics, rather than your original expertise, important to your self-worth),
3. but you cannot get there (either through the lack of time or the lack
of talent - the reason is unimportant),
4. therefore:
(a) you declare that physics you know nothing about to be simply
stupid and unimportant anyway (as in "worthless mumble" - you wouldn't have
used those words if your reason was the science),
(b) you declare those who do know "X" to be inferior to you in some
way ("morons"). Your case is actually a bit more pathological than some of
the others in the sense that you do not limit yourself to the participants
of this forum. Instead, you declare, with a perfectly straight face, that
all physicists are "idiots". This means, literally, all physicists in the
entire world, who lived during the last 120 years or so.
It's an obvious pathology (assuming Maciej is not simply joking or being
paid to post nonsense).
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 21:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncpkk0$gj8$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379722 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:171c3b4c-d99f-42cd-a536-a5bd8a91201d@googlegroups.com... On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com... > > |Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that > for > ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,\ > > But why should anyone sane learn this worthless mumble of an insane > crazie? |You cannot say this is "worthless mumble of an insane crazie" unless you |understand it. See, poor idiot, you don't even know enough to understand, that if something happens it surely can happen. And the rest of your "wisdom" is similiar. Maybe it's good in the world of imagined 2-dimensional ants - but not here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22d53399-b673-4860-a5ba-4b10fdee1c52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379736 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 1:12:49 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:171c3b4c-d99f-42cd-a536-a5bd8a91201d@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that
> > for
> > ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,\
> >
> > But why should anyone sane learn this worthless mumble of an insane
> > crazie?
>
> |You cannot say this is "worthless mumble of an insane crazie" unless you
> |understand it.
>
> See, poor idiot, you don't even know enough to
> understand,
Are you talking to yourself? I mean, lets recap what we've learned here. I issued a challenge to Koobee or any of his anti-relativity crank Herbert Dingle worshipers, i.e. dingleberrys, To find for the exact solutions to Einstein's field equations
ds²=dct'²-dr²-r²dθ²-r²sin²θdφ²-{(2GM/rc²)-[kG(q/rc²)²]+(λr²/3)}(dr±dct')²
what was g^µ_ν.
Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that for ANY metric, exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,
g^µ_ν=g^µ^κg_κ_ν=δ^µ_ν
and yet Koobee and none of the anti-relativity cranks could answer it. The only people that could were people who weren't anti-relativity
So anyway, Koobee was so embarrassed that he couldn't answer the question that he decided to obfuscate the thread to hide that he couldn't answer by writing a bunch of pseudo-mathematical jibberish in hopes that the idiot anti-relativity crank following's eyes would just glaze over with stupidity and not see through the smoke that he didn't know crap about the subject and in so doing made the utterly insane assertion that for any rank two tensor
T^i_j = delta^i_j.
which if he were right about he damn well would have been able to answer the challenge!
Anyway, I gave him counter examples of the stress-energy tensor for vacuum
(0 0 0 0)
T^µ^ν = (0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
and the stress-energy tensor for the EM radiation yielding Vaidya's solution
(List order ct',r,θ,φ)
((dM/du)c²/(4πr²) (-/+)(dM/du)c²/(4πr²) 0 0)
T^µ^ν=((-/+)(dM/du)c²/(4πr²) (dM/du)c²/(4πr²) 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
(0 0 0 0)
ds²=dct'²-dr²-r²dθ²-r²sin²θdφ²-(2GM/rc²)(dr±dct')²
which totally went over his head.
He wen't on to write down a Lagrangian and make the insane assertion that it was the general Lagrangian for general relativity, L = (R / k + ρ) √(- det([g])) and made the assertion that the stress-energy tensor that corresponded to this was [g], that Einstein's field equations are
[R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2
I plainly told him that this crap was absolutely WRONG. That he might as well write bing tittle bop and pretend that has physical meaning. First of all the full Lagrange density for general relativity is(found a better ascii script),
Ḽ=(c⁴/16πG)(R-2λ)+Ḽ_matter where Ḽ_matter is the Lagrange density of whatever matter or fields the spacetime has, including electromagnetism. I also explained to him that the ONLY way his Lagrangian yields T^i_j proportional to delta^i_j is if the ρ of his crap Lagrangian was a constant, but that for ρ being a constant he actually does NOT add any mass density of any other matter or fields, but a mere cosmological constant. And I had already explained to him that the closest thing he could get to his insane condition that
T^i_j = delta^i_j
was to move the cosmological constant term to the right hand side of the field equations and interpret that as the stress-energy tensor of dark energy, and even then as Tom Roberts had pointed out, his units were still wrong.
And, if ρ were not a constant so that it may actually represent some other matter than a cosmological constant, then you absolutely do NOT get
T^i_j proportional to delta^i_j and in fact the term on the right hand side of his field equations
[R] - R [g] / 2 = k [g] / 2
is absolutely WRONG. You just plain don't get that AT ALL.
So here what I think we've proven is that Koobee as well as his anti-relativity crank fellows here don't know crap about the subject matter and as such have no idea what they're talking about. As such it can not be anything rational driving their anti-relativity crankdom, and what I am left to believe is that their motives are irrational motives like jealousy and racism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 21:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncplre$hpe$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379740 |
Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:22d53399-b673-4860-a5ba-4b10fdee1c52@googlegroups.com... On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 1:12:49 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:171c3b4c-d99f-42cd-a536-a5bd8a91201d@googlegroups.com... > > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that > > for > > ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,\ > > > > But why should anyone sane learn this worthless mumble of an insane > > crazie? > > |You cannot say this is "worthless mumble of an insane crazie" unless you > |understand it. > > See, poor idiot, you don't even know enough to > understand, |Are you talking to yourself? No, poor idiot. I'm talking to Jan. |I mean, lets recap what we've learned here. You're too stupid to learn anything - here or anywhere. You can only repeat your pathetic mumble and imagine it's a proof you're on The Higher Lever of Enlightenment. It isn't. Mathematics theories are built with simplified rules and simplified words, but - besides - they are common theories. They can be wise or stupid, valuable or worthless, consistent or not. Of course, The Shit is not mathematical theory anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d3defc6-7d1f-4e86-85e8-7eb7307bba14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379750 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 1:33:52 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:22d53399-b673-4860-a5ba-4b10fdee1c52@googlegroups.com... > > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 1:12:49 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:171c3b4c-d99f-42cd-a536-a5bd8a91201d@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:cb83186e-d155-44c2-b3f6-3ec9aebe19b9@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > |Anyone knowing anything about general relativity would have known that > > > for > > > ANY metric exact solution for realistic matter or NOT,\ > > > > > > But why should anyone sane learn this worthless mumble of an insane > > > crazie? > > > > |You cannot say this is "worthless mumble of an insane crazie" unless you > > |understand it. > > > > See, poor idiot, you don't even know enough to > > understand, > > |Are you talking to yourself? > > No, poor idiot. I'm talking to Jan. > > > |I mean, lets recap what we've learned here. > > You're too stupid to learn anything - here or anywhere. > You can only repeat your pathetic mumble and imagine > it's a proof you're on The Higher Lever of Enlightenment. > It isn't. > > Mathematics theories are built with simplified rules > and simplified words, but - besides - they are common > theories. They can be wise or stupid, valuable or > worthless, consistent or not. > Of course, The Shit is not mathematical theory anyway. Gobbledygook. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web