Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387642 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-12 07:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-29 11:08 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 845 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-12 07:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-12 10:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-12 19:06 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-12 21:20 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 12:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-12 23:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 05:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 07:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 20:26 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 11:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 22:32 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 17:05 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 22:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 22:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 04:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 05:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 06:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 16:30 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 08:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 18:54 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 19:03 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 20:49 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:32 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 12:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 13:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-15 10:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-15 19:10 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 15:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-12 15:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 08:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 05:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-13 11:25 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-13 11:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-15 13:08 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:06 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-13 08:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 07:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:07 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 14:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 11:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 13:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 15:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 17:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 07:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 19:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-17 23:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-14 08:42 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 07:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 13:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 17:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-15 14:05 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-15 06:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 14:23 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-16 00:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-16 10:22 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-14 08:30 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-15 09:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-16 08:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-16 00:06 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 06:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-17 02:40 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 14:48 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:13 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:27 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-23 02:15 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 07:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:21 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 04:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-18 05:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-18 05:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 07:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:03 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-18 09:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 15:07 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 06:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:46 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 10:00 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 13:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-18 23:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 15:33 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 05:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-22 14:05 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 07:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 00:04 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 05:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 20:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 19:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 05:32 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 18:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 15:49 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-22 19:46 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 09:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:31 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 11:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 06:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 15:20 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 09:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:47 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:46 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 08:16 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-17 02:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 14:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 04:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:14 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-18 08:30 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 17:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-19 20:50 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:41 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-21 11:24 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-21 02:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 19:36 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 06:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-21 18:10 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 13:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 16:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:37 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-23 09:54 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 15:58 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:16 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 02:16 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:05 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:01 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:10 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 03:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:44 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 01:55 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-28 19:58 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 05:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-25 19:14 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 12:00 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 20:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-25 18:59 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:09 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 17:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 11:27 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:14 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-26 10:38 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:15 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-27 11:13 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:55 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 02:06 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:03 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-28 19:39 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:05 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-24 20:16 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:39 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 11:34 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:42 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:11 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:23 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 11:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:35 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:17 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:56 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-21 15:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-21 23:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 00:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 06:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 08:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 06:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:37 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 13:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-23 05:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:44 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-23 12:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:48 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 00:10 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:50 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:06 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-24 20:46 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:09 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:54 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 10:36 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 01:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 08:25 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 08:49 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 19:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:01 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 20:45 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:04 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 02:03 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-11 06:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 06:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:07 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 19:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 10:44 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 23:02 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 10:51 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 17:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-19 23:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 09:41 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-20 06:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-21 05:05 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-22 06:09 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 06:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 08:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 08:41 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:47 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 08:52 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-28 07:01 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:49 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-02 09:13 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 08:45 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-21 05:18 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-31 09:22 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 10:10 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 05:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 08:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 09:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-29 18:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 17:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 17:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 21:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 08:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 06:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 06:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:32 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:44 -0700
Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:56 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:22 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 08:41 -0700
crackpot Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 10:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:45 -0700
Stephane Baune denies himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:57 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") continues to troll a thread that he doesn't understand "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:39 -0700
Stepane Baune, the village cretin "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 14:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:30 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") continues to insert foot in the mouth. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 08:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 09:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 10:41 -0700
Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 10:46 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 11:01 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 11:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 15:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 17:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 21:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 08:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 16:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 12:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 21:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 20:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 09:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:10 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 22:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 20:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:23 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 12:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:14 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 14:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 14:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 14:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 15:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 15:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:32 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:05 -0700
Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") digs himself deeper "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:23 -0700
Poser Stephane Baune postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 19:38 -0700
Re: Idiot dono backpedals rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:54 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 20:39 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:36 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 12:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 21:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 22:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 00:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 20:42 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:59 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 21:09 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:47 -0700
Re: Idiot dono shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:20 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune lies and shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:27 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune lies and shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 08:13 -0500
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 13:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 00:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:23 -0700
Stephane Baune digs himself deeper in his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 20:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 18:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:44 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 20:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:34 -0700
Cretin Stephane baune chimes in with a fresh imbecility "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 21:45 -0700
Re:Idiot dono does not knoe the meaning of "simultaneous". rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 22:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 04:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:21 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:26 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 09:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:07 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 04:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:03 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-03 20:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 17:09 -0500
Re: Idiot dono gets owned rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 15:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 15:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 16:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:18 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #3 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:19 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #4 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:34 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 06:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:12 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:24 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:51 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:59 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 09:15 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:38 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:42 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned again by me, Tom et al. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:45 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned again by me, Tom et al. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 21:23 -0700
Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot jumps at the opportunity to suck Stephane Baune's dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:34 -0700
Re:Idiot dono admits defeat in his own words rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 08:17 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune continues to embarrass himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 08:23 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune puffs himself up, just like a hot air balloon "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:29 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 13:00 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 11:30 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 20:57 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 19:25 -0700
Re: Idiot dono messes up a simple math prob, AGAIN! rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 20:40 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune reaches new lows "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 23:03 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 20:01 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 20:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 21:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:37 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 22:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 10:50 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 16:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:54 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 23:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 00:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:34 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 07:38 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 07:42 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:12 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:19 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:38 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:18 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:36 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:41 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:20 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:44 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:48 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 11:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 20:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 19:57 -0700
Cretin Stephane baune pops up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:28 -0700
Re: Idiot dono admits he was wrong?? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 20:47 -0700
Gassbag Stephane Baune at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:52 -0700
Re: Gassbag Stephane Baune at work rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:23 -0700
Re: Gassbag Stephane Baune at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 06:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 06:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 09:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-04 17:16 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:22 -0700
Re:idiot dono gets owned be me # 31 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:44 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune does what he does best: eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:28 -0700
Re: idiot dono gets owned by me # 33 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:53 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune tries to contribute and falls flat on his face "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 20:40 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned by Tom #18 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:34 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune keeps eating shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:43 -0700
Re: idiot donmo gets owned by PCH # 23 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:37 -0700
Imbecile Stephane baune continues to eat shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:44 -0700
Re: idiot dono gets owned #14 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 06:44 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune dabbles into subjects he knows nothing about "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 06:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 09:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 15:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #2 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 06:48 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune chimes in on subjects he doesn't understand "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-03 10:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:37 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 09:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-03 10:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 13:26 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 20:34 -0500
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #5 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:45 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune has no clue about what is being debated "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 19:45 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune contnues to insert foot in mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-04 06:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-04 21:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 09:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 10:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 10:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 10:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 11:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 04:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 05:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 06:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:17 -0700
Idiot Stephane baune adds another goof to his long list of idiocies posted "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:48 -0700
Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:56 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 08:21 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:34 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 08:42 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 09:00 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:50 -0700
Re: Idiot dono blames books for his stupidity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:23 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") back at "work" "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:41 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 11:04 -0500
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:42 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 21:27 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 21:57 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:38 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:35 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune finds a new opportunity to puff himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:40 -0700
Re: idiot dono get owned by Tom # 58 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:38 -0700
idiot rotchm (aka pretender Stephane Baune) acts as the gassbag he is "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 21:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 22:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 04:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 06:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 13:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 19:56 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") is back for some fresh embarrassment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 20:25 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:16 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 16:01 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 19:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-07 15:00 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 16:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-08 14:16 +0200
Stubborn cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot craps all over himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 20:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 02:49 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot sucking dick to crackpot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 23:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 06:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 07:00 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 07:12 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 07:38 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 07:43 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 08:06 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:27 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 08:34 -0700
Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:47 -0700
Re: Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 09:03 -0700
Re: Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 04:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:16 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") persistes "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:25 -0700
Latest imbecility from cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 20:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:16 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 20:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 21:23 -0700
Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:14 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:10 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:22 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:00 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:14 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:34 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 12:39 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 12:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:49 -0700
Stephane Baune receives a fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 13:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:54 -0700
Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 12:00 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 13:35 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:40 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:18 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:19 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:29 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:53 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 16:18 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:41 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 17:18 -0700
Re: Idiot dono cant even subtract correctly rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 19:51 -0700
Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 20:29 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 21:32 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:38 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 18:41 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:41 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 22:46 -0700
Re: Idiot dono foams of the mouth now... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:39 -0700
Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") creting gets a fresh asshole every time he opens his mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin keeps getting fresh assholes (and he likes it) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:52 -0700
Stephane Baune cretinoid gets a yet another fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:54 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #70 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:17 -0700
Sttephane baune rushes to suck ass to Tom's imbecilities "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:21 -0700
Re: Sttephane baune rushes... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:11 -0700
Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:17 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 09:34 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 09:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 11:17 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 13:47 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:53 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 16:02 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:58 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 20:08 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:45 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 16:01 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 17:07 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 21:17 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 02:56 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 19:11 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 20:09 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 20:55 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 22:32 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 05:06 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 06:43 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 08:35 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:25 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 09:28 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:31 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 14:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:49 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:45 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:49 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:35 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 23:06 -0700
Re: Idiot dono ...well, is an idiot... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:57 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin, a glutton for punishment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned by Tom #48 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:13 -0700
Stephane Baune pretender comes back for fresh asshole ripping "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:19 -0700
Re: idiot dono is losing it... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:45 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:54 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:57 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:09 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:13 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:40 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:32 -0700
CRETIN Stephane Baune (aka "rotch") eats some more shit. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:37 -0700
Ifnorant raving Crackpot even stupider than cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:44 -0700
Re:IDIOT DONO EVEN DUMBER THAT IDIOT KEN. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 18:05 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 16:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 22:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 05:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:09 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned #71 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:02 -0700
Stephane Baune rushes to suck ass to his fellow crackpot, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 22:35 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 22:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 03:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 06:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 07:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 08:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 06:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 20:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 21:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 07:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 15:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 16:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 09:06 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 14:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 13:15 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 05:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-03 20:42 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 17:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 15:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 05:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 13:57 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 07:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 08:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 17:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-01 06:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 18:01 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 14:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 17:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:08 -0500
Page 2 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 43 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nm87n0$coo$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387747 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ff65130a-cc8c-4bd5-b174-d9552c341df1@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 13:47:22 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > God bless your ignorance!!! > > > > Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do > > in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the > > same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make > > the difference). > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference. > The observer can make it himself, poor > idiot, and it happens he does. > |For example? For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate t'=t. > |Those are models which should be independent of coordinates or frames of > |reference, since Nature for sure does not use coordinates nor frames of > |reference. > > Nor models, idiot. Nature doesn't use them, but WE > do. As they are for US, they have to fulfill OUR > needs, and your imagined Nature has no business > here. Clear? |For example? For example, your Nature has no business in model building.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39211c31-c7c8-4f62-9277-a9434ba5b67f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387757 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:58 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ff65130a-cc8c-4bd5-b174-d9552c341df1@googlegroups.com... > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 13:47:22 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > > > God bless your ignorance!!! > > > > > > Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do > > > in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the > > > same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make > > > the difference). > > > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference. > > The observer can make it himself, poor > > idiot, and it happens he does. > > > > |For example? > > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate > t'=t. > > Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every one of your "examples". 1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running around". Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely what he will observe!!!! If the observer is seated inside a bus, going at 50 km/hr from left to right, he for sure will observe "buildings and lanterns" going at exactly 50 km/hr from right to left. Did you not know that fact? Has you ever taken a bus in your miserable life? 2) An observer in a plane "observes" he is standing still on his comfortable first class seat, while drinking his Scotch whisky. If he observes through his window, he will observe the ground moving towards his back at 800 km/hr. Did you not know that fact? Has you ever taken an airplane in your miserable life? 3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say t. How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite indicates t'? How in the world could you verify that the clock in the GPS master clock indicates t'? Is it necessary that my car GPS has an atomic clock inside? Are you nuts? > > |Those are models which should be independent of coordinates or frames of > > |reference, since Nature for sure does not use coordinates nor frames of > > |reference. > > > > Nor models, idiot. Nature doesn't use them, but WE > > do. As they are for US, they have to fulfill OUR > > needs, and your imagined Nature has no business > > here. Clear? > > |For example? > > For example, your Nature has no business in model > building. Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in your Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 18:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nm8g43$8nb$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387760 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:39211c31-c7c8-4f62-9277-a9434ba5b67f@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:58 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ff65130a-cc8c-4bd5-b174-d9552c341df1@googlegroups.com... > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 13:47:22 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios > > napisał: > > > > > > > God bless your ignorance!!! > > > > > > Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do > > > in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the > > > same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make > > > the difference). > > > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference. > > The observer can make it himself, poor > > idiot, and it happens he does. > > > > |For example? > > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate > t'=t. > > Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every one of your "examples". 1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running around". Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely what he will observe!!!! If the observer is seated inside a bus, going at 50 km/hr from left to right, he for sure will observe "buildings and lanterns" going at exactly 50 km/hr from right to left. Did you not know that fact? Has you ever taken a bus in your miserable life? 2) An observer in a plane "observes" he is standing still on his comfortable first class seat, while drinking his Scotch whisky. If he observes through his window, he will observe the ground moving towards his back at 800 km/hr. Did you not know that fact? Has you ever taken an airplane in your miserable life? 3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say t. How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite indicates t'? How in the world could you verify that the clock in the GPS master clock indicates t'? Is it necessary that my car GPS has an atomic clock inside? Are you nuts? > > |Those are models which should be independent of coordinates or frames > > of > > |reference, since Nature for sure does not use coordinates nor frames of > > |reference. > > > > Nor models, idiot. Nature doesn't use them, but WE > > do. As they are for US, they have to fulfill OUR > > needs, and your imagined Nature has no business > > here. Clear? > > |For example? > > For example, your Nature has no business in model > building. Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in your Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 19:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nm8gl8$94a$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387760 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:39211c31-c7c8-4f62-9277-a9434ba5b67f@googlegroups.com... > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference. > > The observer can make it himself, poor > > idiot, and it happens he does. > > > > |For example? > > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate > t'=t. > > |Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every one of your "examples". |1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running around". |Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely what he will observe!!!! No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers have very little in common with your moronic tales. |2) An observer in a plane "observes" he is standing still on his comfortable first class seat, while drinking his Scotch whisky. If he observes through his window, he will observe the ground moving towards his back at 800 km/hr. No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers have very little in common with your moronic tales. |3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate |t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say t. How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite indicates t'? I could look at a web page, showing me "atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground control stations and the GPS satellites themselves". http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > > For example, your Nature has no business in model > building. |Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in your Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth? I do trust them, if they are built by competent, reasonable people, like myself. Because, you know, building such models is a part of my profession. During last 30 years it became an industry. I'm an engineer in this industry. You're an incompetent, moronic layman.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5b49d42-9af7-4870-81ac-aa420c94cbd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387768 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:03:37 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:39211c31-c7c8-4f62-9277-a9434ba5b67f@googlegroups.com... > > > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference. > > > The observer can make it himself, poor > > > idiot, and it happens he does. > > > > > > > |For example? > > > > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building > > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago > > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate > > t'=t. > > > > > > |Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every > one of your "examples". > |1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running > around". > |Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely > what he will observe!!!! > > No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and > imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers > have very little in common with your moronic tales. > Have you tried to seat in a rotating platform? Even poor schools have physics laboratories where children can verify by themselves how building and lanterns revolve around them. Take a good advice and visit a technical museum for morons like you and verify this. > > |2) An observer in a plane "observes" he is standing still on his > comfortable first class seat, while drinking his Scotch whisky. If he > observes through his window, he will observe the ground moving towards his > back at 800 km/hr. > > No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and > imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers > have very little in common with your moronic tales. > Again it is clear you have never done any real physics experiment, so your opinion is worth shit... > |3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate > |t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say t. > How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite > indicates t'? > > I could look at a web page, showing me > "atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground > control stations and the GPS satellites themselves". > http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > So now the atomic clock time t' is the time read in the internet... Are you really that crazy nut... > > > > For example, your Nature has no business in model > > building. > > |Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in your > Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth? > > I do trust them, if they are built by competent, reasonable people, like > myself. > Because, you know, building such models is a part of my profession. During > last 30 years it became an industry. I'm an engineer in this industry. > You're an incompetent, moronic layman. Ok, now it is clear your are the owner of the truth. So Model God, illustrate us of some of the models you have done. Were them published or are them being used in real life?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 20:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nm8mre$g3n$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387769 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:b5b49d42-9af7-4870-81ac-aa420c94cbd7@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:03:37 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:39211c31-c7c8-4f62-9277-a9434ba5b67f@googlegroups.com... > > > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference. > > > The observer can make it himself, poor > > > idiot, and it happens he does. > > > > > > > |For example? > > > > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building > > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago > > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate > > t'=t. > > > > > > |Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every > one of your "examples". > |1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running > around". > |Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely > what he will observe!!!! > > No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and > imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers > have very little in common with your moronic tales. > |Have you tried to seat in a rotating platform? Yes, poor idiot. We have some merry-go-rounds here, in Poland, too. And real observers have very little in common with your moronic tales. They're simply not following your primitive schemas. > |3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate > |t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say > t. > How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite > indicates t'? > > I could look at a web page, showing me > "atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground > control stations and the GPS satellites themselves". > http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > |So now the atomic clock time t' is the time read in the internet... Yes, poor idiot, it is. Once again, as I'm talking to a really poor idiot. http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > |Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in > your > Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth? > > I do trust them, if they are built by competent, reasonable people, like > myself. > Because, you know, building such models is a part of my profession. During > last 30 years it became an industry. I'm an engineer in this industry. > You're an incompetent, moronic layman. |Ok, now it is clear your are the owner of the truth. So Model God, illustrate us of some of the models you have done. Were them published or are them being used in real life? They're a part of what I'm paid for for 20 years. No, they're not published. They're implemented and working.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 16:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac2a3bbe-dc85-450f-8423-3fc523263cd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387760 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:50:16 AM UTC-7, paparios wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:58 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:ff65130a-cc8c-4bd5-b174-d9552c341df1@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 13:47:22 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > > > > > > God bless your ignorance!!! > > > > > > > > Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do > > > > in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the > > > > same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make > > > > the difference). > > > > > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference. > > > The observer can make it himself, poor > > > idiot, and it happens he does. > > > > > > > |For example? > > > > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building > > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago > > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate > > t'=t. > > > > > > Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every one of your "examples". > > 1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running around". > > Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely what he will observe!!!! Maciej uses a different definition of "observe" than physics uses. He never stated precisely what his definition was. In physics the definition uses a specific assignment of certain labels called "coordinates". This definition necessarily means that the "buildings and lanterns(*)" do run around the observer in the sense the same pattern of changing coordinates would be produced by some objects mounted on a, say, rotatable ring situated around the observer. It's trivial but trivia is all Maciej ever discusses on this newsgroup (besides obvious falsehoods). (*)wrong word again, "lantern" means "lampion" in Polish. > If the observer is seated inside a bus, going at 50 km/hr from left to right, he for sure will observe "buildings and lanterns" going at exactly 50 km/hr from right to left. Did you not know that fact? Has you ever taken a bus in your miserable life? He has his private, secret, definitions for everything. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f98b5e22-7487-4f29-a63b-f7381fbe9b7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387649 |
El martes, 12 de julio de 2016, 13:28:18 (UTC-4), paparios escribió: > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:06:25 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:vIednRmiaPvrmxjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > |An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair > > of > > > > Samely, as an observer going through a street can OBSERVE trees, > > buildings and trees running around him. > > Your bunch of idiots never knew, what an observation is. Well, > > a complicated process. > > Well moron, let us see how you answer this. A guy who takes a flight at Sydney Australia at 9am lands at Santiago, Chile at 9am. Who did the move? My congratulations! You put an excellent example to clear the meaning of what 1905 Einstein denotes *stationary system* and his definition of the *time*relative to it; the scenario is in essence the same introduced by him at the end of Section 4 of his June 30 paper, the Newtonian center of mass (CM) system corresponding to the body set of all interacting Earth's parts, the same today denoted GPS ECI. We have here involved a SINGLE system where the Earth is rotating around its axis at some constant angular velocity in the corresponding stationary space where that axis is at the relative rest of the system, including the CM and the poles as tree points of it. In every point of that space we can consider an ideal clock at rest synchronized according to the *time* definition, showing simultaneously at any instant the same ECI *time*. About your guy taking the flight at Sydney, he (and the whole plane including all other passengers) remains at rest in the ECI system all the flight time, until the moving Santiago (from West to East) arrives to the rest plane. Since 1686 Newtonian Mechanics, the movement of two entities is NOT a reciprocal one considering the other entity at rest. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e80ce235-cdfe-4c51-8ddc-ed2ba0ad4b7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387643 |
El martes, 12 de julio de 2016, 11:02:20 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió:
> On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Simultaneity of two
> > events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and
> > at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine
> > the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
>
> This is just plain not true.
>
> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to,
> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too).
>
> My context is the flat manifolds of SR. In some manifolds of GR
> this is not true.
>
> An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair of
> events is simultaneous in that frame. In general this requires a clock
> pre-positioned at the location in the frame where the event will occur, and of
> course the clocks must be synchronized in the frame. Then it is simply a matter
> of recording the time on the co-located clock when each event happens, and then
> comparing the two time values for equality.
>
> That is what we mean by "simultaneous" in an inertial frame. This
> can be done for ANY pair of events and ANY inertial frame.
>
You are using here the 1905 Einstein definition of *time* relative to what he
denotes as a “stationary system” of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean
geometry), in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.
Unfortunately, you are taking for granted that the *stationary system* concept
of 1905 Einstein's Relativity (what I denote as 1905R) is exactly the same of
the today SR *inertial frame* one. Your behavior is a total contradictory one,
using the 1905R *time* in a context very different from the original one based
on the following two postulates (literal 1905 text):
Postulate 1. [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for
all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]
Postulate 2. [ Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. Hence velocity=light path/time interval , where time interval
is to be taken in the sense of the definition in Sec. 1 ]
BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very successful
GPS operation since already almost four decades. With Cartesian coordinates and
Euclidean geometry, all GPS receptors are resolving every instant the following
Newtonian system of equations:
(x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2
where (x, y, z) is the position of the receptor at the same reception instant t
of signals transmitted from i different satellites (at least 4 ones) with
position (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i.
The signals have then always the same uniform velocity c, totally independent
on the satellite (or receptor) velocities in the GPS ECI stationary system. The
light velocity c is derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations holding good in the
same frame of reference where the equations of mechanics do the same (Postulate
1), being also independent on the source velocity (Postulate 2), i.e. holding
good both 1905R Postulates.
The objective (experimental) existence of the relative space and time defined
by 1905R, finds then with the GPS a direct and extraordinary huge support,
having nothing to do with the *space-time* of today SR and its symmetrical
assumed properties in flagrant contradiction with 1905R postulates.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ttKdnduS2rqdlRTKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #387658 |
On 7/12/16 7/12/16 - 3:11 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El martes, 12 de julio de 2016, 11:02:20 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: >> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to, >> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too). >> >> My context is the flat manifolds of SR. In some manifolds of GR >> this is not true. >> >> An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair of >> events is simultaneous in that frame. In general this requires a clock >> pre-positioned at the location in the frame where the event will occur, and of >> course the clocks must be synchronized in the frame. Then it is simply a matter >> of recording the time on the co-located clock when each event happens, and then >> comparing the two time values for equality. >> >> That is what we mean by "simultaneous" in an inertial frame. This >> can be done for ANY pair of events and ANY inertial frame. >> > You are using here the 1905 Einstein definition of *time* relative to what he > denotes as a “stationary system” of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean > geometry), in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. NONSENSE. You put YOUR notions into what I wrote -- that's invalid. I am, of course, using the meaning of "time" from SR, AS I SAID: "My context is the flat manifolds of SR." > [... further nonsense based on that error] > BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very successfu > GPS operation since already almost four decades. Not true. The ECI used by the GPS is CLEARLY AND TRIVIALLY not 'a “stationary system” of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean geometry), in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.' All you have to do is observe the sun for a few days.' The GPS necessarily uses GR, not SR. While its ECI coordinates are constructed specifically so that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in them, they are not of unlimited validity. They are a LOCALLY INERTIAL FRAME, with validity limited to the vicinity of earth up to GPS satellite altitude. So knowledgeable people know that the ECI is not valid for observing the sun. You, however, seem to not understand this. In 1905 this was not understood, and by freezing your mind back then you prevent yourself from learning much of anything. > [... further ranting about nonsense unrelated to TODAY's world] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmb5es$1re$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387825 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ttKdnduS2rqdlRTKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |The GPS necessarily uses GR, not SR. While its ECI coordinates are constructed A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. If it used the moronic standards of your Shit, it wouldn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec0b6a08-03b0-4ff6-b8a9-b13eba004fd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387825 |
El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 11:57:58 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: > On 7/12/16 7/12/16 - 3:11 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El martes, 12 de julio de 2016, 11:02:20 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió: > >> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to, > >> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too). > >> > >> My context is the flat manifolds of SR. In some manifolds of GR > >> this is not true. > >> > >> An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair of > >> events is simultaneous in that frame. In general this requires a clock > >> pre-positioned at the location in the frame where the event will occur, and of > >> course the clocks must be synchronized in the frame. Then it is simply a matter > >> of recording the time on the co-located clock when each event happens, and then > >> comparing the two time values for equality. > >> > >> That is what we mean by "simultaneous" in an inertial frame. This > >> can be done for ANY pair of events and ANY inertial frame. > >> > > You are using here the 1905 Einstein definition of *time* relative to what he > > denotes as a “stationary system” of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean > > geometry), in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. > > NONSENSE. You put YOUR notions into what I wrote -- that's invalid. > 1905 Einstein is the one using Cartesian coordinates, Euclidean geometry and Newtonian equations (these are NOT AT ALL my notions), what is very easy to verify by simply reading the beginning of Section 1 of his June 30 paper. And YOU ARE the one using here the 1905 Einstein definition of *time* relative to what he denotes as a "stationary system" of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean geometry), in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. The idea about the pre-positioned synchronized clock at the place of the event is clearly expressed by 1905 Einstein in the following paragraph (almost at the end of the referred Section 1): [ Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous", or "synchronous", and of "time". The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. ] > I am, of course, using the meaning of "time" from SR, AS I SAID: "My > context is the flat manifolds of SR." > YOU ARE then clearly the one violating the 1905 context of the Einstein's *time* definition, substituting it by the today SR-GR one not developed yet. Where only exist Cartesian coordinates, Euclidean geometry and Newtonian equations with time separated from space, you put the 4 dimensional flat manifolds of SR, committing and absurd anachronism. > > > [... further nonsense based on that error] > > > BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very successfu > > GPS operation since already almost four decades. > > Not true. The ECI used by the GPS is CLEARLY AND TRIVIALLY not 'a “stationary > system” of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean geometry), in which the > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.' All you have to do is observe the > sun for a few days.' > The continuous very successful GPS operation for already almost four decades CONTRADICTS EXPERIMENTALLY in a direct way what you say. The GPS ECI IS a 1905R stationary system of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean geometry), in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good, as the ones resolved by all GPS receptors (developed using BOTH 1905R postulates, as showed to you already in detail one by one). The Sun has nothing to do with the GPS ECI; even the Moon was not taken into account when determining the ECI system center of mass. Such a LIMITED body set of interacting bodies is present already since 1686NM Corollary IV. The observation of the apparent Sun's movement around the Earth (violating 1686NM laws) that you mention is a CONFIRMATION of the 1905R stationary character of the ECI. As it is well known, any Newtonian center of mass (CM) system is LIMITED to describe the trajectories of only the bodies taking into account when determining its CM. > The GPS necessarily uses GR, not SR. While its ECI coordinates are constructed > specifically so that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in them, they > are not of unlimited validity. They are a LOCALLY INERTIAL FRAME, with validity > limited to the vicinity of earth up to GPS satellite altitude. > Then you recognize here that SR is NOT used in GPS, in total contradiction with your previous assertion "My context is the flat manifolds of SR". As you can see, this contradiction is a clear consequence of your previous anachronism commission. The isotropic c is already present in 1905R Postulate 2, and the limited character of the stationary system since the 1686NM Corollary IV. BTW, today we can also use 1905R to explain the gravitational potential red shift effect on atomic clocks, and in a way very much simpler than GR. The identification that you made between the GPS ECI and a unique GR locally inertial frame is an erroneous one. In the ECI, as gravity is present, exist infinite such frames. This is precisely why SR cannot be used in it. The scenario is completely different with 1905R, where we have a unique 1905R stationary system. Your persistent erroneous view considering 1905R and SR one and the same thing made you blind to understand this. > So knowledgeable people know that the ECI is not valid for > observing the sun. You, however, seem to not understand this. > In 1905 this was not understood, and by freezing your mind > back then you prevent yourself from learning much of anything. > You contradict yourself again. Can you see your post describing the Sun's trajectory in the ECI expending a year to go around a rest Earth? Perhaps it is already several years ago. I know that the ECI is not valid to describe a Sun's trajectory in it, applying simple 1686NM. To respect the 1905 context does not mean at all not to know today one. > > > [... further ranting about nonsense unrelated to TODAY's world] > The GPS ECI is TODAY'S world, supporting directly TODAY both 1905R postulates (and then also 1686NM ones). You have no way to reject that. Nobody can reject EXPERIMENTAL FACTS. > > Tom Roberts RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 15:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cb9c4aa-9d0f-4bcf-8607-4f540555a66b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387643 |
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:02:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Simultaneity of two > > events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and > > at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine > > the simultaneity of two events in different frames. > > This is just plain not true. This is true because an outside observer moving wrt a pair of simultaneous events will never be able to detect their true simultaneity.....why? Because according to him (the outside observer) no two co-moving events in the universe can happened simultaneously. For example: observer A measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame happened simultaneously .....no other observer in the universe will be able to measure the TRUE simultaneity of these two events (e1 and e2). They will all conclude erroneously that e1 and e2 did not happened simultaneously. OTOH, observer A can use the LT to inform other outside observers that e1 and e2 did happened simultaneously. > > Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to, > EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too). But only the observer in the rest frame of the events can determine the true simultaneity of a pair of events. > > My context is the flat manifolds of SR. In some manifolds of GR > this is not true. > > An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair of > events is simultaneous in that frame. Right.... In general this requires a clock > pre-positioned at the location in the frame where the event will occur, and of > course the clocks must be synchronized in the frame. There is no need for such clocks. The observer measures the distance of the events to be equal and the signals from the events arrive at him simultaneously.....he correctly concludes that the events did happened simultaneously. In any case the concept of RoS have no function in relativity. It has no effect on any properties of any inertial frame. Einstein invoked RoS to cancel out the paradoxes derived fro the SR postulate of constant light speed in all frames. >Then it is simply a matter > of recording the time on the co-located clock when each event happens, and then > comparing the two time values for equality. > > That is what we mean by "simultaneous" in an inertial frame. This > can be done for ANY pair of events and ANY inertial frame. > > > > [... further nonsense ignored] > > You are incredibly confused about very basic concepts of physics. The "bogus > concept" is YOURS, AND YOURS ALONE. You have been struggling with this for more > than a decade, and have NOTHING to show for your wasted time. It seems that you > are too stupid to figure out how to LEARN anything -- how sad. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0fc9081-8451-46f3-833f-261dab49201b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387662 |
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > This is true because an outside observer moving wrt a pair of > simultaneous events will never be able to detect their > true simultaneity..... But SR never makes claims about "true simultaneity". It talks about *simultaneity. Since *you* invoked the expressions "simultaneity" and "true simultaneity", then what do you mean by these? Are they different concepts? >... no two co-moving events in the universe can happened simultaneously. Wtf ? In english plz...? Seems that you are confused about the concept of an *event*. Events dont "move". > For example: observer A measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame > happened simultaneously .....no other observer in the universe will > be able to measure the TRUE simultaneity of these two events Which is why SR is used here; since "TRUE simultaneity" cant be measured, SR removes the "TRUE simultaneity" from any considerations, and just uses "simultaneity". IOW, " simultaneity" just means that we cant measure ""TRUE simultaneity"". I'm glad that you finally start to agree with SR. <rest of confusions snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 05:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e68c9093-fe41-4e42-bb2a-c9ae4a164db9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387699 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:59:10 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > This is true because an outside observer moving wrt a pair of > > simultaneous events will never be able to detect their > > true simultaneity..... > > But SR never makes claims about "true simultaneity". It talks about *simultaneity. Since *you* invoked the expressions "simultaneity" and "true simultaneity", then what do you mean by these? Are they different concepts? > > > >... no two co-moving events in the universe can happened simultaneously. > > Wtf ? In english plz...? > Seems that you are confused about the concept of an *event*. Events dont "move". I'll clarify.....all pairs of events in different frames are non-simultaneous. > > > For example: observer A measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame > > happened simultaneously .....no other observer in the universe will > > be able to measure the TRUE simultaneity of these two events > > Which is why SR is used here; since "TRUE simultaneity" cant be measured, SR removes the "TRUE simultaneity" from any considerations, and just uses "simultaneity". > > IOW, " simultaneity" just means that we cant measure ""TRUE simultaneity"". > I'm glad that you finally start to agree with SR. > > > <rest of confusions snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcardinale@volcanomail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5fc833c-fc44-4ac6-b9df-5f1b458fbc13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387662 |
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 3:04:13 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:02:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > Simultaneity of two > > > events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and Notice here that the kenseto is completely clueless about what a frame of reference is, also clueless about what an event is. Note also that it would be impossible to teach him what they are. <snip> > > This is true because an outside observer moving wrt a pair of simultaneous events And another demonstration that he has no concept of what an event is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcardinale@volcanomail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad57ac41-ef33-488d-bad5-3e18f11105f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387643 |
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:02:20 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Simultaneity of two > > events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and > > at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine > > the simultaneity of two events in different frames. > > This is just plain not true. > > Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to, > EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too). What would be an example of non-inertial coordinates that are not locally-valid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <W4Gdna3HJsQyuxTKnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #387707 |
On 7/13/16 7/13/16 - 1:27 PM, pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:02:20 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Simultaneity of two >>> events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and >>> at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine >>> the simultaneity of two events in different frames. >> >> This is just plain not true. >> >> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to, >> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too). > > What would be an example of non-inertial coordinates that are not locally-valid? Rindler coordinates of an accelerating observer at positions behind their horizon. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm5hsd$1n1g$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387642 |
On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons: > 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of > the two events and at equal distance from the two events. Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument. > An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames. > > 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise > to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet > paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the > bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the > speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the > constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes > derived from it. Fabricated history. First of all, relativity of simultaneity was published in 1905, years BEFORE the first "paradox" was invented. So it would be a neat trick for Einstein to read the future, learn about "paradoxes" that would be invented years later, and then invent relativity of simultaneity BEFOREHAND to explain them away when they appeared later. Secondly, closing speed is NOT the same as speed of light. Your assertion is not an argument. > > 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other > physical properties of the events. Data says otherwise. Your assertion is not an argument. > IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make > SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37a9a313-db66-4401-b6c9-a9b6c5f1869a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387689 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons: > > 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of > > the two events and at equal distance from the two events. > > Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument. No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events. There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. The observer at the frame of the event can use the LT to transform the time of simultaneity between two events in his frame to an outside observer. In any case RoS has no effect on any properties of any frame....it is used to cancel out all the paradoxes derived from the P2. > > > An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames. > > > > 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise > > to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet > > paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the > > bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the > > speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the > > constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes > > derived from it. > > Fabricated history. First of all, relativity of simultaneity was > published in 1905, years BEFORE the first "paradox" was invented. So it > would be a neat trick for Einstein to read the future, learn about > "paradoxes" that would be invented years later, and then invent > relativity of simultaneity BEFOREHAND to explain them away when they > appeared later. That's irrelevant....Einstein realized that his P2 have problems so he introduced the RoS to eliminate these problems. > > Secondly, closing speed is NOT the same as speed of light. Your > assertion is not an argument. There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object. That's why closing speed is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. > > > > > 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other > > physical properties of the events. > > Data says otherwise. Your assertion is not an argument. No data says otherwise.....assertion is not an argument. > > > IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make > > SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 43 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web