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 7 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 43 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmqpvk$11p$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388030 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:52:28 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 7/18/16 7/18/16 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > if there is no material contraction then the bug is crushed before the = >head >> > of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. >>=20 >> Not true. >It is absolutely true. Both SR and IRT agree that there is no material >contraction in both frames. SR states there is length contraction of the rivet in the wall frame so the head MUST strike the wall first, in the wall frame. Nobody cares what IRT says, as it is a failed theory. As the contraction is not material it is agreed that the bug is eventually crushed. It's a matter of when. (in the original bug-rivet gedanken, not the misstated version Ken provided earlier)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 05:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77d9e93d-3fb5-4e41-a762-e35c1cc6141f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388133 |
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 11:34:00 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:52:28 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 7/18/16 7/18/16 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > if there is no material contraction then the bug is crushed before the = > >head > >> > of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > >>=20 > >> Not true. > > >It is absolutely true. Both SR and IRT agree that there is no material > >contraction in both frames. > > SR states there is length contraction of the rivet in the wall frame > so the head MUST strike the wall first, in the wall frame. Hey idiot....SR says that the shaft of the rivet "geometric projection shortened" is not material length contraction effect. That means that the bug dies first before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmt983$egu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388175 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 11:34:00 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >It is absolutely true. Both SR and IRT agree that there is no material >> >contraction in both frames. >> >> SR states there is length contraction of the rivet in the wall frame >> so the head MUST strike the wall first, in the wall frame. >Hey idiot....SR says that the shaft of the rivet "geometric projection shortened" >is not material length contraction effect. Exactly. That means that, because the bug sees the shaft has been shortened by length contraction, the bug sees that the head hits the wall before the bug gets squished. It's obvious, really. If the shaft is seen shorter than the hole, the head must hit the wall first. Remember, RoS states what is seen and in what order. Other calculation does state the bug does get squished. This is not in dispute. I keep telling you, over and over and over, to read what SR actually has to say, instead of guessing incorrectly (or using your broken IRT) and coming up with wrong conclusions here, like you always do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b35d4634-82be-4055-9d87-bfa902b8ca06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388179 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:06:48 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 11:34:00 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >It is absolutely true. Both SR and IRT agree that there is no material > >> >contraction in both frames. > >> > >> SR states there is length contraction of the rivet in the wall frame > >> so the head MUST strike the wall first, in the wall frame. > > >Hey idiot....SR says that the shaft of the rivet "geometric projection shortened" > >is not material length contraction effect. > > Exactly. That means that, because the bug sees the shaft has been shortened > by length contraction, the bug sees that the head hits the wall before the bug > gets squished. It's obvious, really. If the shaft is seen shorter than the hole, > the head must hit the wall first. Sigh....the bug does not see the shaft been shortened...this is an erroneous assumption because the predicted length contraction is not material. The bug got squished before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > Remember, RoS states what is seen and in what order. > > Other calculation does state the bug does get squished. This is not in dispute. > > I keep telling you, over and over and over, to read what SR actually has to > say, instead of guessing incorrectly (or using your broken IRT) and coming up > with wrong conclusions here, like you always do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 00:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn10nb$35l$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388181 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:06:48 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> SR states there is length contraction of the rivet in the wall frame >> >> so the head MUST strike the wall first, in the wall frame. >> >> >Hey idiot....SR says that the shaft of the rivet "geometric projection shortened" >> >is not material length contraction effect. >> >> Exactly. That means that, because the bug sees the shaft has been shortened >> by length contraction, the bug sees that the head hits the wall before the bug >> gets squished. It's obvious, really. If the shaft is seen shorter than the hole, >> the head must hit the wall first. >Sigh....the bug does not see the shaft been shortened...this is an >erroneous assumption because the predicted length contraction is not >material. The bug got squished before the head of the rivet hits the wall >of the hole. If the shaft is 1" in the rivet rest frame, and the hole is also 1" in the bug rest frame, but the rivet approaches with gamma=2, the bug measures the shaft as 1/2". This means the head hits when the tip is only 1/2" down the shaft. This should be obvious to you, Ken. The fact the contraction is not material means the bug does get squashed. All the contraction does is to determine the order of events the two observers see. >> I keep telling you, over and over and over, to read what SR actually has to >> say, instead of guessing incorrectly (or using your broken IRT) and coming up >> with wrong conclusions here, like you always do. And once again, your failure to ever read what SR actually says has caused you to fail yet again. Why do you persist in failing over and over again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e83e1ad6-7926-40f6-a2e5-d3faab086b10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388245 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:05:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:06:48 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >> SR states there is length contraction of the rivet in the wall frame > >> >> so the head MUST strike the wall first, in the wall frame. > >> > >> >Hey idiot....SR says that the shaft of the rivet "geometric projection shortened" > >> >is not material length contraction effect. > >> > >> Exactly. That means that, because the bug sees the shaft has been shortened > >> by length contraction, the bug sees that the head hits the wall before the bug > >> gets squished. It's obvious, really. If the shaft is seen shorter than the hole, > >> the head must hit the wall first. > > >Sigh....the bug does not see the shaft been shortened...this is an > >erroneous assumption because the predicted length contraction is not > >material. The bug got squished before the head of the rivet hits the wall > >of the hole. > > If the shaft is 1" in the rivet rest frame, and the hole is also 1" in the > bug rest frame, but the rivet approaches with gamma=2, the bug measures > the shaft as 1/2". This means the head hits when the tip is only 1/2" > down the shaft. This should be obvious to you, Ken. Idiot here you are taking about material contraction.....you don't even understand that modern SR says that there is no material contraction. There is a geometric projection contraction which is not material. Gee you are stupid. > > The fact the contraction is not material means the bug does get squashed. > All the contraction does is to determine the order of events the two > observers see. Idiot....no material contraction means that the order of the of the events cannot be changed. Gee you are stupid. > > >> I keep telling you, over and over and over, to read what SR actually has to > >> say, instead of guessing incorrectly (or using your broken IRT) and coming up > >> with wrong conclusions here, like you always do. > > And once again, your failure to ever read what SR actually says has caused > you to fail yet again. Why do you persist in failing over and over again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 14:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn36lf$rv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388271 |
On 7/24/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >> If the shaft is 1" in the rivet rest frame, and the hole is also 1" in the >> > bug rest frame, but the rivet approaches with gamma=2, the bug measures >> > the shaft as 1/2". This means the head hits when the tip is only 1/2" >> > down the shaft. This should be obvious to you, Ken. > Idiot here you are taking about material contraction. No, he's not. Not at all. Nothing material about it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn39v3$uoh$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388271 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:05:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >Sigh....the bug does not see the shaft been shortened...this is an >> >erroneous assumption because the predicted length contraction is not >> >material. The bug got squished before the head of the rivet hits the wall >> >of the hole. >> >> If the shaft is 1" in the rivet rest frame, and the hole is also 1" in the >> bug rest frame, but the rivet approaches with gamma=2, the bug measures >> the shaft as 1/2". This means the head hits when the tip is only 1/2" >> down the shaft. This should be obvious to you, Ken. >Idiot here you are taking about material contraction..... No, Ken, I am not talking anout material contraction when talking about what the bug sees. It is, by definition, the length contraction that SR predicts. The lack of material contraction squashes the bug a fraction of a second later. >you don't even understand that modern SR says that there is no material >contraction. Ken, you should talk. You don't understand what modern SR says AT ALL. Your false statements are probably from your failed IRT, but are definitely not from SR. >There is a geometric projection contraction which is not material. Exactly. This is what the bug sees. >> The fact the contraction is not material means the bug does get squashed. >> All the contraction does is to determine the order of events the two >> observers see. >Idiot....no material contraction means that the order of the of the >events cannot be changed. Gee you are stupid. No, Ken. The bug sees the rivet as being shortened, so the bug has to see the head hit first. This is from the geometric projection, not the (lack of) material contraction. The RoS is a direct consequence of the finite constant speed of light. Why do you refuse to learn what SR says?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 19:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <726bc574-cbe7-42de-840a-15ce5c2d0db0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388310 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:05:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >Sigh....the bug does not see the shaft been shortened...this is an > >> >erroneous assumption because the predicted length contraction is not > >> >material. The bug got squished before the head of the rivet hits the wall > >> >of the hole. > >> > >> If the shaft is 1" in the rivet rest frame, and the hole is also 1" in the > >> bug rest frame, but the rivet approaches with gamma=2, the bug measures > >> the shaft as 1/2". This means the head hits when the tip is only 1/2" > >> down the shaft. This should be obvious to you, Ken. > > >Idiot here you are taking about material contraction..... > > No, Ken, I am not talking anout material contraction when talking about > what the bug sees. It is, by definition, the length contraction that > SR predicts. The lack of material contraction squashes the bug a fraction > of a second later. Idiot ....no material contraction means that the bug already dead....so how does a dead bug manages to see the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole at a later time. > > >you don't even understand that modern SR says that there is no material > >contraction. > > Ken, you should talk. You don't understand what modern SR says AT ALL. > Your false statements are probably from your failed IRT, but are > definitely not from SR. > > >There is a geometric projection contraction which is not material. > > Exactly. This is what the bug sees. > > >> The fact the contraction is not material means the bug does get squashed. > >> All the contraction does is to determine the order of events the two > >> observers see. > > >Idiot....no material contraction means that the order of the of the > >events cannot be changed. Gee you are stupid. > > No, Ken. The bug sees the rivet as being shortened, so the bug has to > see the head hit first. This is from the geometric projection, not the > (lack of) material contraction. The RoS is a direct consequence of the > finite constant speed of light. Why do you refuse to learn what SR says?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 05:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn489a$2ud$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388328 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:05:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> >> If the shaft is 1" in the rivet rest frame, and the hole is also 1" in the >> >> bug rest frame, but the rivet approaches with gamma=2, the bug measures >> >> the shaft as 1/2". This means the head hits when the tip is only 1/2" >> >> down the shaft. This should be obvious to you, Ken. >> >> >Idiot here you are taking about material contraction..... >> >> No, Ken, I am not talking anout material contraction when talking about >> what the bug sees. It is, by definition, the length contraction that >> SR predicts. The lack of material contraction squashes the bug a fraction >> of a second later. >Idiot ....no material contraction means that the bug already dead.... No, Ken, there is absolutely no reason to state that. The length contraction simply means the bug sees the rivet head hit the wall while the shaft is only 1/2" down the hole, just before it dies. It must see that, remember the bug measures the shaft length as 1/2" and the hole depth as 1". Try it yourself, stick a 1/2" long rivet into a 1" deep hole and see if the head hits the top of the hole before the tip hits the bottom of the hole. >so how does a dead bug manages to see the head of the rivet hits the wall of >the hole at a later time. Because it sees the head hit the wall _BEFORE_ the tip squishes it. It must, remember the bug is in a 1" deep hole and the shaft is only 1/2" deep. Because there is no material contraction, the bug dies immediately thereafter. Why don't you learn SR for once? Why don't you ever answer when I ask you why you refuse to learn SR?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53867608-4cf3-4feb-90a1-942ace2f6136@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388333 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> >On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:05:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> > >> >> If the shaft is 1" in the rivet rest frame, and the hole is also 1" in the > >> >> bug rest frame, but the rivet approaches with gamma=2, the bug measures > >> >> the shaft as 1/2". This means the head hits when the tip is only 1/2" > >> >> down the shaft. This should be obvious to you, Ken. > >> > >> >Idiot here you are taking about material contraction..... > >> > >> No, Ken, I am not talking anout material contraction when talking about > >> what the bug sees. It is, by definition, the length contraction that > >> SR predicts. The lack of material contraction squashes the bug a fraction > >> of a second later. > > >Idiot ....no material contraction means that the bug already dead.... > > No, Ken, there is absolutely no reason to state that. The length > contraction simply means the bug sees the rivet head hit the wall while > the shaft is only 1/2" down the hole, just before it dies. It must see > that, remember the bug measures the shaft length as 1/2" and the hole > depth as 1". Try it yourself, stick a 1/2" long rivet into a 1" deep hole > and see if the head hits the top of the hole before the tip hits the > bottom of the hole.hit the wall of the hole.s the Fucking idiot.....there is no such measurement.....the LT predicts length contraction but we don't know what is being contracted when you deny the existence of material contraction. The problem of denying material length contraction is that the bug is crushed to dead before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > > >so how does a dead bug manages to see the head of the rivet hits the wall of > >the hole at a later time. > > Because it sees the head hit the wall _BEFORE_ the tip squishes it. It > must, remember the bug is in a 1" deep hole and the shaft is only 1/2" > deep. > > Because there is no material contraction, the bug dies immediately > thereafter. > > Why don't you learn SR for once? Why don't you ever answer when I ask you > why you refuse to learn SR?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn5n18$fqd$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388390 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> >Idiot ....no material contraction means that the bug already dead....
>>
>> No, Ken, there is absolutely no reason to state that. The length
>> contraction simply means the bug sees the rivet head hit the wall while
>> the shaft is only 1/2" down the hole, just before it dies. It must see
>> that, remember the bug measures the shaft length as 1/2" and the hole
>> depth as 1". Try it yourself, stick a 1/2" long rivet into a 1" deep hole
>> and see if the head hits the top of the hole before the tip hits the
>> bottom of the hole.hit the wall of the hole.s the
>Fucking idiot.....there is no such measurement.....
Einstein explicitly stated how to do that measurement in the "On the Relativity
of Lengths and Times" section of his 1905 SR paper. Specifically sec (b):
[start quoting Einstein]
Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured
by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod
lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a
uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in
the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to
the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the
following two operations:--
(a)
The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be
measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the
measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.
(b)
By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and
synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of
the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a
definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod
already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be
designated "the length of the rod."
In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the
operation (a)--we will call it "the length of the rod in the moving system"--must
be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.
The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the
(moving) rod in the stationary system." This we shall determine on the basis of
our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.
[end quoting Einstein]
This is how to measure the length of the moving rivet shaft.
>the LT predicts
Measures. See above.
> length contraction but we don't know what is being contracted
Yes we do. It is the projection of the moving rivet shaft in the
stationary bug frame.
> when you deny the existence of material contraction. The problem of
>denying material length contraction is that the bug is crushed to dead before
>the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
That "problem" is in your own mind only. The bug sees the rivet head hit the
wall just before it gets crushed.
>> Why don't you learn SR for once? Why don't you ever answer when I ask you
>> why you refuse to learn SR?
And once again, you refuse to answer why you refuse to learn SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83d57b9a-f4e8-444d-8e3f-55b5733f6730@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388396 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 2:51:09 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> >Idiot ....no material contraction means that the bug already dead.... > >> > >> No, Ken, there is absolutely no reason to state that. The length > >> contraction simply means the bug sees the rivet head hit the wall while > >> the shaft is only 1/2" down the hole, just before it dies. It must see > >> that, remember the bug measures the shaft length as 1/2" and the hole > >> depth as 1". Try it yourself, stick a 1/2" long rivet into a 1" deep hole > >> and see if the head hits the top of the hole before the tip hits the > >> bottom of the hole.hit the wall of the hole.s the > > >Fucking idiot.....there is no such measurement..... > > Einstein explicitly stated how to do that measurement in the "On the Relativity > of Lengths and Times" section of his 1905 SR paper. Specifically sec (b): > > [start quoting Einstein] > > Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured > by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod > lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a > uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in > the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to > the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the > following two operations:-- > > (a) > The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be > measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the > measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest. > (b) > By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and > synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of > the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a > definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod > already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be > designated "the length of the rod." > > In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the > operation (a)--we will call it "the length of the rod in the moving system"--must > be equal to the length l of the stationary rod. > > The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the > (moving) rod in the stationary system." This we shall determine on the basis of > our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l. > > [end quoting Einstein] > > > This is how to measure the length of the moving rivet shaft. How come no such measurement ever been performed? The answer: it is impossible to do so. > > >the LT predicts > > Measures. See above. > > > length contraction but we don't know what is being contracted > > Yes we do. It is the projection of the moving rivet shaft in the > stationary bug frame. > > > when you deny the existence of material contraction. The problem of > >denying material length contraction is that the bug is crushed to dead before > >the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > That "problem" is in your own mind only. The bug sees the rivet head hit the > wall just before it gets crushed. > > >> Why don't you learn SR for once? Why don't you ever answer when I ask you > >> why you refuse to learn SR? > > And once again, you refuse to answer why you refuse to learn SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn80pd$mvn$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388457 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 2:51:09 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >Fucking idiot.....there is no such measurement..... >> Einstein explicitly stated how to do that measurement in the "On the Relativity >> of Lengths and Times" section of his 1905 SR paper. Specifically sec (b): .... >> This is how to measure the length of the moving rivet shaft. >How come no such measurement ever been performed? But these measurements have been performed. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that it is not so isn't going to change reality. Or are you complaining that these measurements were done with things like particle accelerators but not wooden meter sticks or high speed rivets as described by Einstein's works? >> >> Why don't you learn SR for once? Why don't you ever answer when I ask you >> >> why you refuse to learn SR? >> And once again, you refuse to answer why you refuse to learn SR. And once again, you refuse to answer why you refuse to learn SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 19:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmtm60$3ij$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #388179 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nmt983$egu$1@pcls7.std.com... |Exactly. That means that, because the bug sees the shaft has been shortened |by length contraction, the bug sees that the head hits the wall before the bug Sure. And an observer going through a street sees trees and buildings running around him. Or, at least, poor idiot imagined he sees, sort of the same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23ee5dd9-14ee-4604-bc8d-a6e975be3a3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388010 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:52:28 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/18/16 7/18/16 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > if there is no material contraction then the bug is crushed before the head > > of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > Not true. > > Here's an ANALOGY: > Take a meterstick and try to pass it through a 10 cm hole -- > it fits through in some orientations but not in others. Note > that no "material contraction" ever occurs, but in some > orientations it goes through and in others it doesn't. If the meter stick is 11 cm wide it will not be able to fit through the 10 cm hole no matter how it is oriented. > > In relativity, relative motion is A CHANGE IN ORIENTATION in the spaceTIME > manifold. Along the time dimension, "fitting" is temporal and is directly > related to simultaneity. A change in orientation will not change the order of the events.....ie the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > Your statement above uses "before" -- that is ORIENTATION DEPENDENT in > relativity -- in this gedanken the relative motion will make the head of the > rivet hit the wall before the bug is crushed IN THE FRAME OF BUG AND WALL. No.....this requires material contraction. SR get around this problem by saying that length contraction is merely a projection effect (not a material effect). IRT does not have such problem.....it says that there is no material contraction in any frame and the length contraction equation means that the light-path length of the rivet shaft is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. >As > this is just a rotation in spaceTIME, there is no "material contraction", just a > different geometrical projection onto the coordinates of the relevant inertial > frames (that of bug and wall, and that of the rivet). > > This is a rather poor gedanken, because when the rivet hits > the wall and stops, the collision releases energy comparable > to that of an atomic bomb. Issues of "which came first" pale > in comparison to that. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 09:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmiqrm$1rgr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387963 |
On 7/18/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot if there is no material contraction then the bug is crushed before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. Let's recap. 1. You cannot use the simplest Cartesian coordinate system to locate the coordinates of a rod. Or rather, you say you can, but you get answers different than what's in books. 2. You have fabricated equations that look something like Lorentz equations but are your own and are not listed in books anywhere. For example Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)). 3. You cannot evaluate (-5m/c) in seconds, and you cannot evaluate Delta(5/c) in your own equation. 4. You believe that -1.7E-8 seconds means time elapsed going from right to left. 5. You do not know what a reference frame is. 6. You do not know what acceleration is. 7. You cannot do third grade arithmetic like (-6)/(-2). Any other silliness I should add? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 06:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0515f715-e3ca-4c68-97c6-37451ecc7844@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387968 |
On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:59:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/18/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot if there is no material contraction then the bug is crushed before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > Let's recap. > 1. You cannot use the simplest Cartesian coordinate system to locate the > coordinates of a rod. Or rather, you say you can, but you get answers > different than what's in books. No I didn't....I used the equation in the book. > 2. You have fabricated equations that look something like Lorentz > equations but are your own and are not listed in books anywhere. For > example Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)). It is listed in th book. > 3. You cannot evaluate (-5m/c) in seconds, and you cannot evaluate > Delta(5/c) in your own equation. (-5m/c) is a time interval in the left side of the origin. > 4. You believe that -1.7E-8 seconds means time elapsed going from right > to left. Yes -1.7E-8 is a time interval for light to travel the distance of 5m on the left side of the origin. > 5. You do not know what a reference frame is.know what a reference frame is. It is you who don't what a reference frame is. > 6. You do not know what acceleration is. ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. > 7. You cannot do third grade arithmetic like (-6)/(-2). Metic t appears that you don't know how to do the arithmetic of (-6/-2) and you tried to get me to help you....sorry I suggest that you go and read a book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmldk8$qka$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388025 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:59:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/18/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > Idiot if there is no material contraction then the bug is crushed before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. >> >> Let's recap. >> 1. You cannot use the simplest Cartesian coordinate system to locate the >> coordinates of a rod. Or rather, you say you can, but you get answers >> different than what's in books. >No I didn't....I used the equation in the book. So you don't understand the Cartesian coordinates in the book. >> 2. You have fabricated equations that look something like Lorentz >> equations but are your own and are not listed in books anywhere. For >> example Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)). >It is listed in th book. Odd already wrote that there's nothing like that in his H&R book. You made it up. >> 3. You cannot evaluate (-5m/c) in seconds, and you cannot evaluate >> Delta(5/c) in your own equation. >(-5m/c) is a time interval in the left side of the origin. So you don't understand simple geometry and the meaning of the minus sign. >> 4. You believe that -1.7E-8 seconds means time elapsed going from right >> to left. >Yes -1.7E-8 is a time interval for light to travel the distance of 5m on the left side of the origin. Once again, you don't understand simple geometry and the meaning of the minus sign. >> 5. You do not know what a reference frame is.know what a reference frame is. >It is you who don't what a reference frame is. > You have previously demonstrated you do not know what a reference frame is. >> 6. You do not know what acceleration is. >ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. You don't understand it. I remember the car acceleration discussion well. >> 7. You cannot do third grade arithmetic like (-6)/(-2). >Metic t appears that you don't know how to do the arithmetic of (-6/-2) and > you tried to get me to help you....sorry I suggest that you go and read a book. You have failed for YEARS to solve (-6)/(-2). I suspect it is because you don't understand the meaning of the minus sign (points 3 and 4). So, in summary, you fail 7 simple points of math and physics. Yet you consider yourself qualified to "improve" on SR? I need to add another point. You don't even understand SR in the first place!! How can you "improve" on SR if you don't even understand it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79f8f687-d453-4b20-9a74-9c2dbc10fbe2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388025 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:05:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:59:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/18/2016 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > Idiot if there is no material contraction then the bug is crushed before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > > > Let's recap. > > 1. You cannot use the simplest Cartesian coordinate system to locate the > > coordinates of a rod. Or rather, you say you can, but you get answers > > different than what's in books. > > No I didn't....I used the equation in the book. > > > 2. You have fabricated equations that look something like Lorentz > > equations but are your own and are not listed in books anywhere. For > > example Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)). > > It is listed in th book. What it is listed in the book is in table 37-2 reading "The Lorentz Transformation Equations for Pairs of Events" Then the equations are: Delta_x=gamma(delta_x'+v delta_t') Delta_t=gamma(delta_t'+ (v/c^2)delta_x') Delta_x'=gamma(delta_x-v delta_t) delta_t'=gamma(delta_t-(v/c^2)delta_x) with gamma=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) So how is Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)) related to those equations?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 43 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web