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 3 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 43 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm5m8e$1umo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387695 |
On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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. Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument. > There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. Bullshit. You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things, just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you. > 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. And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes. > 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. INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well done, Ken. > >> >> 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. Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument. > That's why closing speed > is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity. Inventing history again. >> >>> >>> 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. Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid 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 -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 04:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4511f29e-d8b2-479f-93b2-a098ca4b50fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387696 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > 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. > > Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument. That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events. > > There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. > > Bullshit. > You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things, > just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you. Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened in different frame? > > 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. > > And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes. > > > 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. > > INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well > done, Ken. > > > > >> > >> 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. > > Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument. > > > That's why closing speed > > is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. > > Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity. > Inventing history again. Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic.....closing speed between two material objects is variable. > > >> > >>> > >>> 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. > > Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument. I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light and any object. If not then you are full of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0e1cd04-0dc6-41c5-870f-e4430bb8ccf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387743 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two > events happened in different frame? Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!? *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames. Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events? Well that's simple. The observer may have two clocks, each of which just happen to be at an event. If the values of his clocks indicate the same value, then the events are simul by definition. For example, suppose I bough a new clock but have not set it up; it remains at "noon". I go out for a walk...sometime thereafter my working watch indicates noon as I sneeze (event 1) and then I loose my watch into a pond. When I get back home 1 hour or so, I look at by clock (which indicates noon) and I sneeze (event 2). At both events, the time was noon, so both events are simultaneous by definition. > Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic..... ??? No it is not. > closing speed between two material objects is variable. Yeah... Be it two material bodies or one body & light, "closing speed" is 'variable". You seem confused about the notion of closing speed. > I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different > closing speeds between light and any object. Simple. In my frame I have a light source fixed to the ground. I'm seated and a friend of mine is running towards the source with speed v>0. In my frame, the closing speed of the lightfront & my friend is |c - (-v)| = c+v. In *his* frame, the closing speed between the lightfront & him is |c - 0| = c. See, they are different; c+v <> c. Understood?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 06:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48eff26d-6fcd-4cc8-a850-59e6ff120638@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387751 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two > > events happened in different frame? > > Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!? > *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames. > Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events? How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon? > > Well that's simple. The observer may have two clocks, each of which just happen to be at an event. You are talking nonsense....The observer on earth may have two clocks at the events on the moon??? >If the values of his clocks indicate the same value, then the events are simul by definition. Idiot there is no clock on the moon even if there were no observer at the moon to read them. >For example, suppose I bough a new clock but have not set it up; it remains at "noon". I go out for a walk...sometime thereafter my working watch indicates noon as I sneeze (event 1) and then I loose my watch into a pond. When I get back home 1 hour or so, I look at by clock (which indicates noon) and I sneeze (event 2). At both events, the time was noon, so both >events are simultaneous by definition. This is completely nonsense......You claimed that you can measure simultaneity with one working clock and one not working clock??? > > > > Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic..... > > ??? No it is not. > > > closing speed between two material objects is variable. > > Yeah... Be it two material bodies or one body & light, "closing speed" is 'variable". You seem confused about the notion of closing speed. There is no confusion....we can measure the different closing speeds between two material objects but Einstein said that we cannot measure different clock speed between light and any material object. > > > > I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different > > closing speeds between light and any object. > > Simple. In my frame I have a light source fixed to the ground. I'm seated and a friend of mine is running towards the source with speed v>0. > > In my frame, the closing speed of the lightfront & my friend is |c - (-v)| = c+v. This is assumed.....not a measurement. Einstein said that your friend measures the closing speed for any light front coming toward him is c. > > In *his* frame, the closing speed between the lightfront & him is |c - 0| = c. This is a measurement. > > See, they are different; c+v <> c. Understood? Assumptions are not valid argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmau7o$1d39$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387815 |
On 7/15/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> >>> .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two >>> events happened in different frame? >> >> Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!? >> *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames. >> Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events? > > How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon? Ken, two different frames are not miles apart. They OVERLAP. The observers in both frames are RIGHT NEXT TO the same events. They just happen to be moving next to each other. You might as well ask, "How does the observer measure the length of a rod with his eyes closed?" He doesn't. He opens his eyes. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <613d0c6e-bbee-4722-909b-0f0f66701242@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387821 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:07:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>> .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two > >>> events happened in different frame? > >> > >> Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!? > >> *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames. > >> Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events? > > > > How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon? > > Ken, two different frames are not miles apart. They OVERLAP. Still how do you measure the simultaneity of two events on the moon? > > The observers in both frames are RIGHT NEXT TO the same events. They > just happen to be moving next to each other. ROTFLOL....So are you saying that you are next to the guy on the moon?????? > > You might as well ask, "How does the observer measure the length of a > rod with his eyes closed?" He doesn't. He opens his eyes. How does that related to what we were discussing?????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 15:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmbhu9$d9q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387836 |
On 7/15/2016 3:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:07:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/15/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>> .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two >>>>> events happened in different frame? >>>> >>>> Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!? >>>> *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames. >>>> Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events? >>> >>> How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon? >> >> Ken, two different frames are not miles apart. They OVERLAP. > > Still how do you measure the simultaneity of two events on the moon? If you have to, you go to the moon. But why would anybody do that to show this principle works? Scientists do experiments where it is feasible to show the principle works, not where it's really difficult to show the principle works. If you wanted to show that the pressure of water at depth h is given by (density)(g)(h), a scientist would do this in a swimming pool. Would you ask him how to show that it's true at the bottom of the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean? > >> >> The observers in both frames are RIGHT NEXT TO the same events. They >> just happen to be moving next to each other. > > ROTFLOL....So are you saying that you are next to the guy on the moon?????? >> >> You might as well ask, "How does the observer measure the length of a >> rod with his eyes closed?" He doesn't. He opens his eyes. > > How does that related to what we were discussing????? > You are the one asking all the questions about the moon. Nobody needs to measure the simultaneity of events on the moon. It is sufficient to show this principle works on earth. And that's where they do it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28654426-3c08-42fc-be79-4224db5097c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387840 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:43:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 3:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:07:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/15/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two > >>>>> events happened in different frame? > >>>> > >>>> Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!? > >>>> *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames. > >>>> Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events? > >>> > >>> How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon? > >> > >> Ken, two different frames are not miles apart. They OVERLAP. > > > > Still how do you measure the simultaneity of two events on the moon? > > If you have to, you go to the moon. > > But why would anybody do that to show this principle works? Scientists > do experiments where it is feasible to show the principle works, not > where it's really difficult to show the principle works. > > If you wanted to show that the pressure of water at depth h is given by > (density)(g)(h), a scientist would do this in a swimming pool. Would you > ask him how to show that it's true at the bottom of the Marianas Trench > in the Pacific Ocean? > > > > >> > >> The observers in both frames are RIGHT NEXT TO the same events. They > >> just happen to be moving next to each other. > > > > ROTFLOL....So are you saying that you are next to the guy on the moon?????? > >> > >> You might as well ask, "How does the observer measure the length of a > >> rod with his eyes closed?" He doesn't. He opens his eyes. > > > > How does that related to what we were discussing????? > > > > You are the one asking all the questions about the moon. Nobody needs to > measure the simultaneity of events on the moon. It is sufficient to show > this principle works on earth. And that's where they do it. You guys claimed that you can measure the simultaneity of two events anywhere by putting two synchronized clock at the locations of the events. That's why I asked you how you are going to do that if the events were on the moon. I disagreed with your assertions. I said that the simultaneity of two events can only be measured if the observer is at equal distance from the events. Or you can place two synched clocks at the locations of the events.....however, this approach requires two absolutely synched clocks and if you have such pair of clock why don't you use them to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 08:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nmedea$1v46$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387845 |
On 16/07/16 07:17, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:43:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> How does that related to what we were discussing????? >>> >> >> You are the one asking all the questions about the moon. Nobody >> needs to measure the simultaneity of events on the moon. It is >> sufficient to show this principle works on earth. And that's where >> they do it. > > You guys claimed that you can measure the simultaneity of two events > anywhere by putting two synchronized clock at the locations of the > events. That's why I asked you how you are going to do that if the > events were on the moon. I disagreed with your assertions. >I said > that the simultaneity of two events can only be measured if the > observer is at equal distance from the events. That is an interesting claim. Even then, it has to be assumed that information about the events is sent to the observer at the same speed. An aetherist would have a very different view from a Newtonian as to how that can be done and how it would affect the very definition of simultaneity. >Or you can place two > synched clocks at the locations of the events.....however, this > approach requires two absolutely synched clocks and if you have such > pair of clock why don't you use them to measure the one-way speed of > light directly? Good point, Ken. These fellows are morons who rarely know what they are arguing about. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8d51556-2708-4a4c-85f6-323d6982898c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387815 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:39:40 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events > happened on the Moon? I explained it to you. Cant you read? Or is your short term memory limited to 3 hours? > > Well that's simple. The observer may have two clocks, > > each of which just happen to be at an event. > > You are talking nonsense....The observer on earth may have two clocks > at the events on the moon??? Yes. Or instead of the moon, take a lab on a train. Same idea. But if he doesnt have any clocks available, he uses a different method, that I also explained to you and that you snipped out. > >If the values of his clocks indicate the same value, > > then the events are simul by definition. > > Idiot there is no clock on the moon even if there were no > observer at the moon to read them. You are confused on the notion of 'event' & 'observer'. > This is completely nonsense......You claimed that you can measure > simultaneity with one working clock and one not working clock??? Yes, since its a matter of *definition*. If I defined it that way, then its that way! You seem to be confused about the notion of 'conventions' & 'definitions'. > > In my frame, the closing speed of the lightfront & my friend > > is |c - (-v)| = c+v. > > This is assumed.....not a measurement. Its part of the initial conditions that YOU set up. If you say that x=5 & y = 2, then x+y = 7. The '7' is NOT assumed; it is deduced from the initial conditions. No measurements required. If I measure the SoL I get c. I can measure the speed of a car; say, its 10. Then the closing speed (meaning, the difference) of those two values is c-10 (or c+10 if its the other way). > Einstein said that your friend measures the closing speed for any > light front coming toward him is c. So? That is NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about closing speed measured in MY frame. > > In *his* frame, the closing speed between the lightfront & him > is |c - 0| = c. > > This is a measurement. So ? > > See, they are different; c+v <> c. Understood? > > Assumptions are not valid argument. Its not an assumption; its basic math: if v <> 0 then c+v <> c. You deny that???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm87lr$1ev8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387743 |
On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument. > > That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events. No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity that you seem to be unaware of. > >>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. >> >> Bullshit. >> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things, >> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you. > > Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened > in different frame? Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right? Or do you not know what a reference frame is? Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any other reference frame can see the events? This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks. A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I could see, just because we were in different frames? > >>> 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. >> >> And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes. >> >>> 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. >> >> INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well >> done, Ken. >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument. >> >>> That's why closing speed >>> is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. >> >> Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity. >> Inventing history again. > > Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic. Bullshit, Ken. Simply not true. >....closing speed between two material objects is variable. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >> Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument. > > I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light > and any object. If not then you are full of shit. Ken, you always assume you're right until someone spoonfeeds you information. And even then you don't believe it. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <932890cc-1aa2-4088-b4d5-cc398a15b64a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387756 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument. > > > > That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events. > > No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity > that you seem to be unaware of. The only way to measure simultaneity correctly: the observer is in the rest frame of the two events and mid-way between the two events. > > > > >>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. > >> > >> Bullshit. > >> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things, > >> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you. > > > > Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened > > in different frame? > > Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right? An event is an object.....it is at rest in its own frame. > Or do you not know what a reference frame is? > Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a > reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any > other reference frame can see the events? I am in a spaceship and two events happened simultaneously inside the ship. You are on earth .....do you know that two events happened simultaneously in the ship without me telling you? Guess not. > > This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks. > A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train > was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really > think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I > could see, just because we were in different frames? The train is moving between New York and Boston and certainly the conductor can't see the firework in Ohio. You can use the LT to inform him that two fire work go off simultaneously in your frame. > > > > >>> 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. > >> > >> And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes. > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well > >> done, Ken. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >> > >> Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument. > >> > >>> That's why closing speed > >>> is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. > >> > >> Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity. > >> Inventing history again. > > > > Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic. > > Bullshit, Ken. Simply not true. > > >....closing speed between two material objects is variable. > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >> > >> Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument. > > > > I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light > > and any object. If not then you are full of shit. > > Ken, you always assume you're right until someone spoonfeeds you > information. And even then you don't believe it. > So I guess that you admit that you were full of shit.....no data available showing different closing velocity between light and any object.....BTW that why we measure light speed to be isotropic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 15:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm8tl4$lld$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387778 |
On 7/14/2016 3:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument. >>> >>> That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events. >> >> No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity >> that you seem to be unaware of. > > The only way to measure simultaneity correctly: the observer is in the rest frame of the two > events and mid-way between the two events. Still wrong. You're going to have to get it through your head that there are correct ways to measure simultaneity other than the one way you know. >> >>> >>>>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. >>>> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things, >>>> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you. >>> >>> Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened >>> in different frame? >> >> Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right? > > An event is an object.....it is at rest in its own frame. No. An event is not an object. Nor is it at rest in ANY frame. An event has no time duration. For something to be at rest, it has to have a time duration. > >> Or do you not know what a reference frame is? > >> Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a >> reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any >> other reference frame can see the events? > > I am in a spaceship and two events happened simultaneously inside the ship. > You are on earth .....do you know that two events happened simultaneously > in the ship without me telling you? Guess not. Two different frames are NOT SEPARATED BY A LARGE DISTANCE. >> >> This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks. >> A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train >> was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really >> think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I >> could see, just because we were in different frames? > > The train is moving between New York and Boston and certainly the conductor > can't see the firework in Ohio. You can use the LT to inform him that two fire > work go off simultaneously in your frame. Again, two frames are not separated by large distances. Frames OVERLAP. There is no spatial separation between frames. The train I mentioned was not in another state. It was right nearby the fireworks. It was at rest in different frame than my own rest frame. But we BOTH still saw the fireworks. I don't know where you ever got the STUUUUUUPID idea that reference frames are separated by large distances. >> >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well >>>> done, Ken. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument. >>>> >>>>> That's why closing speed >>>>> is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity. >>>> Inventing history again. >>> >>> Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic. >> >> Bullshit, Ken. Simply not true. >> >>> ....closing speed between two material objects is variable. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument. >>> >>> I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light >>> and any object. If not then you are full of shit. >> >> Ken, you always assume you're right until someone spoonfeeds you >> information. And even then you don't believe it. >> > > So I guess that you admit that you were full of shit.....no data available showing different > closing velocity between light and any object.....BTW that why we measure light speed to be isotropic. No, I don't admit any such thing. I refuse to spoonfeed you. Your response to not being spoonfed is ALWAYS to call the other person wrong. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 23:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9386d009-b99b-42e2-9080-db006a454f18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387780 |
W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 22:45:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Still wrong. You're going to have to get it through your head that there > are correct ways to measure simultaneity other than the one way you know. They're obviously correct, as Great Guru said they are. Could the path of such a great guru be incorrect?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5bcf5ad1-f75b-47e5-8540-6e0ecd654054@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387778 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:38:30 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > The only way to measure simultaneity correctly: the observer is in > the rest frame of the two events and mid-way between the two events. An event does not have a frame and even less a rest frame. Take for instance two flintrocks colliding and making a spark (which rock is moving?) The event is the spark. What is the "rest fame" of the spark? > An event is an object..... No. An event is a selection of a pair (x,t), like (0,0) or (-2,5) etc. those are events. Physically, its an occurrence, a "flash", a brief explosion. > it is at rest in its own frame. You throw a flintrock onto the ground and it makes a spark. What is the rest frame of the spark? Its the ground? Or the frame of the rock? Oe some other frame? > I am in a spaceship and two events happened simultaneously inside the > ship. You are on earth .....do you know that two events happened > simultaneously in the ship without me telling you? Guess not. Yes we can know, by measuring the position and time of the events in my frame, then applying the LT's. These will tell me if the events are simul in your frame. We then can verify by asking you. (such exps have been done btw).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c528fc7-abf6-4426-bb75-f89792c63cc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387756 |
W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 16:30:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks. > A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train > was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really > think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I > could see, just because we were in different frames? And do you really think that an event that happened 12.07.2016 08:30:21 for you happened 12.07.2016 08:34:12 for him?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d25fdfe1-a171-4a6f-b560-0525931a69d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387756 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument. > > > > That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events. > > No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity > that you seem to be unaware of. So how do you measure the simultaneity of two events happened on the moon? > >>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. > >> > >> Bullshit. > >> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things, > >> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you. > > > > Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened > > in different frame? > > Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right? Yes.....so what? > Or do you not know what a reference frame is? > Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a > reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any > other reference frame can see the events? You can't see two events happened at the moon.....even if you saw them you cannot measure if they were simultaneous. Simultaneity can only be measured at the mid point between the two events and in the frame of the events. > > This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks. > A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train > was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really > think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I > could see, just because we were in different frames? > > > > >>> 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. > >> > >> And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes. > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well > >> done, Ken. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >> > >> Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument. > >> > >>> That's why closing speed > >>> is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. > >> > >> Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity. > >> Inventing history again. > > > > Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic. > > Bullshit, Ken. Simply not true. > > >....closing speed between two material objects is variable. > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >> > >> Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument. > > > > I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light > > and any object. If not then you are full of shit. > > Ken, you always assume you're right until someone spoonfeeds you > information. And even then you don't believe it. ROTFLOL....you can't show me any data so you tried to bullshit your way out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmauhv$1e49$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387818 |
On 7/15/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument. >>> >>> That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events. >> >> No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity >> that you seem to be unaware of. > > So how do you measure the simultaneity of two events happened on the moon? I go to the moon. But I don't have to check with events on the moon. > >>>>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. >>>> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things, >>>> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you. >>> >>> Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened >>> in different frame? >> >> Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right? > > Yes.....so what? So any observers in any two different frames can observe the same events, as long as both observers are close. > >> Or do you not know what a reference frame is? >> Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a >> reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any >> other reference frame can see the events? > > You can't see two events happened at the moon.....even if you saw them > you cannot measure if they were simultaneous. That's not true. > Simultaneity can only be measured at the mid point between the two events and > in the frame of the events. Bullshit. It's the only way YOU can think of to do it, but it sure isn't the only way. > >> >> This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks. >> A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train >> was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really >> think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I >> could see, just because we were in different frames? >> >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well >>>> done, Ken. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument. >>>> >>>>> That's why closing speed >>>>> is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity. >>>> Inventing history again. >>> >>> Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic. >> >> Bullshit, Ken. Simply not true. >> >>> ....closing speed between two material objects is variable. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument. >>> >>> I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light >>> and any object. If not then you are full of shit. >> >> Ken, you always assume you're right until someone spoonfeeds you >> information. And even then you don't believe it. > > ROTFLOL....you can't show me any data so you tried to bullshit your way out. Ken, I'm happy to tell you a book to find the data in, but you're too fucking lazy to get out of the house. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3016426-4bb7-4c75-b02f-a90fa9b1f0ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387822 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:13:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument. > >>> > >>> That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events. > >> > >> No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity > >> that you seem to be unaware of. > > > > So how do you measure the simultaneity of two events happened on the moon? > > I go to the moon. Great...you go to the moon......but I doubt that you are physically fit. > > But I don't have to check with events on the moon. So how else do you do the measurement? > > > > >>>>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. > >>>> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things, > >>>> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you. > >>> > >>> Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened > >>> in different frame? > >> > >> Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right? > > > > Yes.....so what? > > So any observers in any two different frames can observe the same > events, as long as both observers are close. But you and the guy on the moon are 1/4 million miles apart.....is that close? > > > > >> Or do you not know what a reference frame is? > >> Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a > >> reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any > >> other reference frame can see the events? > > > > You can't see two events happened at the moon.....even if you saw them > > you cannot measure if they were simultaneous. > > That's not true. > > > Simultaneity can only be measured at the mid point between the two events and > > in the frame of the events. > > Bullshit. It's the only way YOU can think of to do it, but it sure isn't > the only way. Thats' the only way to measure the true simultaneity of two events. > >> This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks. > >> A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train > >> was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really > >> think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I > >> could see, just because we were in different frames? > >> > >>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes. > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well > >>>> done, Ken. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument. > >>>> > >>>>> That's why closing speed > >>>>> is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity. > >>>> Inventing history again. > >>> > >>> Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic. > >> > >> Bullshit, Ken. Simply not true. > >> > >>> ....closing speed between two material objects is variable. > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument. > >>> > >>> I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light > >>> and any object. If not then you are full of shit. > >> > >> Ken, you always assume you're right until someone spoonfeeds you > >> information. And even then you don't believe it. > > > > ROTFLOL....you can't show me any data so you tried to bullshit your way out. > > Ken, I'm happy to tell you a book to find the data in, but you're too > fucking lazy to get out of the house.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 15:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmbi1e$d9q$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387837 |
On 7/15/2016 3:27 PM, kenseto wrote: >> So any observers in any two different frames can observe the same >> > events, as long as both observers are close. > But you and the guy on the moon are 1/4 million miles apart.....is that close? >> > Ken, no experimenter in his right mind would test the simultaneity of events by using observers that are 1/4 million miles apart. Why would anybody do that? Why would anybody NEED to do that? You show it right here on earth. Two observers in different frames, but CLOSE to each other, looking at the same pair of events. THAT'S how you do the measurement. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 43 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web