Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390586 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-23 05:34 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-08-26 17:28 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 664 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 05:34 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:58 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:44 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 15:57 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:20 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 07:11 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 14:05 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:24 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-24 08:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:55 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 13:34 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:51 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 02:58 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 14:59 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 09:56 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 12:22 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 09:11 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 07:52 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 07:10 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:26 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 13:40 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 15:59 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 14:16 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:28 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-24 08:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:58 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 13:43 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:54 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 21:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 15:14 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-26 13:36 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 21:39 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-27 22:58 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 06:34 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 06:18 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 11:28 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-07 05:10 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 07:49 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-07 06:32 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 09:04 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-07 07:30 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 10:23 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 11:00 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-07 14:14 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 16:34 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-08 13:21 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:32 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-09 08:47 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:18 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-10 06:12 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 15:44 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 19:20 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:23 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-10 13:39 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:27 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-12 19:56 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:41 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-13 09:27 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:27 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 08:43 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 10:49 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 08:42 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 09:43 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-18 19:37 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:49 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 05:10 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:20 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 22:40 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 19:13 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:53 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 08:17 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 19:19 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-10 13:44 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 04:10 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-11 15:27 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-11 07:59 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-12 07:51 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-11 17:41 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-12 19:53 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:35 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-12 06:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-12 21:15 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-13 09:40 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-13 07:01 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-13 10:35 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 09:01 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-13 18:43 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 23:51 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-14 01:00 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 18:18 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 01:46 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 16:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 18:57 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 03:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 20:56 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-14 04:43 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 08:49 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-15 03:59 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 04:49 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 08:46 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:12 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 05:54 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-18 19:55 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 11:52 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-14 13:46 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 08:47 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-16 05:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 08:48 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-16 07:16 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 09:57 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 16:18 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-16 12:32 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:39 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 13:38 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:09 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-18 06:27 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:56 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-16 13:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:09 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-18 06:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 10:02 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 20:42 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 13:57 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 22:03 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 06:05 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:57 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 08:05 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 17:22 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 08:52 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 18:34 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 09:56 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:03 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:07 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 10:19 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:30 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 11:07 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 20:13 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 11:40 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:30 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:28 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-17 13:52 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 13:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-17 20:42 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 02:14 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-20 20:34 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 19:34 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-21 05:51 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 08:04 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-21 06:16 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-21 15:20 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-21 08:34 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 09:29 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-22 02:57 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-22 05:17 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 09:29 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:13 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 14:31 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-22 16:51 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-23 08:06 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 23:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 05:01 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-23 05:32 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-23 07:28 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-23 07:42 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-18 23:06 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:33 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 12:18 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 13:04 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-18 23:04 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-17 18:50 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:26 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:00 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 03:32 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 02:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:10 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 07:47 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-18 10:59 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 11:38 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-18 15:52 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 00:22 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-19 01:50 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-19 06:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:45 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:36 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 00:30 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 07:50 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-19 06:05 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-19 07:15 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:27 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-19 12:28 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-23 08:16 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:01 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-23 07:06 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:45 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-23 08:16 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 10:28 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 05:56 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-20 05:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 05:53 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-20 06:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:36 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-20 10:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:41 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-21 05:59 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 08:05 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-21 06:20 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 09:29 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:50 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 10:49 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 03:05 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 23:58 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 13:30 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 11:03 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 19:53 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 13:17 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-20 15:25 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 13:52 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 22:05 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 00:20 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-21 13:38 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 13:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-20 20:03 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 00:56 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-09-20 21:59 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 00:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-21 13:53 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 13:55 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 15:45 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 06:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:41 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-21 16:07 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 15:17 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:39 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 17:53 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 18:17 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 14:26 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:38 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 17:09 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 06:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 00:17 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 00:47 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 05:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 06:00 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 06:21 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 06:59 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-22 17:25 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 09:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-22 18:36 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 11:10 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 23:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 10:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-22 19:51 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 18:07 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:27 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 10:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-22 19:48 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 11:17 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 23:15 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-28 13:18 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 14:54 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:30 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:44 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 05:30 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 13:15 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 12:02 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-04 20:42 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 14:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-26 22:22 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 11:36 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 03:48 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 09:28 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 10:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:33 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 12:51 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:46 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 14:05 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-23 08:06 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 10:26 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 05:49 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:08 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 10:42 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 13:28 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 11:46 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 12:06 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 13:00 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 20:53 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 04:49 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:43 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 10:27 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 10:53 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:59 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 15:36 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:57 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 06:01 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:08 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 14:25 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 13:39 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:02 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 14:37 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:48 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 04:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:54 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 04:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:49 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:57 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 11:44 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 11:50 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 13:59 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 13:39 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:00 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 06:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:13 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 06:28 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:14 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 10:42 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:32 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:32 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 14:05 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:52 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 00:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 00:43 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:22 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 02:54 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:19 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:07 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 11:16 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 13:55 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:58 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:11 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:21 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:17 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:37 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:58 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 23:21 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:10 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:56 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:19 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 13:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 14:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 11:34 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 13:14 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 13:35 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 17:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 09:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-01 12:43 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 03:37 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 05:59 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 05:31 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 16:34 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 13:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 03:57 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 17:54 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 19:03 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 03:19 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 14:07 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 15:42 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-24 12:09 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 06:57 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-22 13:53 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 14:32 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 06:30 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-22 15:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 08:36 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 19:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 20:57 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-24 15:27 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-26 00:07 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:21 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 00:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 10:30 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 01:44 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 05:54 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 06:37 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 21:23 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:56 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-28 15:23 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 10:52 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-26 18:10 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 11:53 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:20 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 23:43 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 11:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 13:57 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 17:47 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 08:57 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 23:18 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:19 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 05:54 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:18 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:19 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 00:09 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 21:09 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 05:06 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-19 06:53 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:25 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 11:39 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:05 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:19 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-19 12:36 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 16:58 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-20 05:38 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:35 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-20 10:26 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-21 05:41 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-21 14:48 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 08:02 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-21 13:55 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-21 20:33 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:42 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-21 06:02 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 08:08 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 02:45 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 00:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 13:37 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 17:42 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:02 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 10:30 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-17 05:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-17 14:22 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-18 06:00 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 02:07 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-19 20:03 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:57 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:21 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-19 07:07 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 18:05 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:54 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 05:24 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:25 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 14:34 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 06:54 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:30 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 02:57 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:20 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 09:30 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 08:50 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-17 18:43 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:04 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:03 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-18 20:03 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:50 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 05:04 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:20 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 05:56 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 19:18 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:56 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-22 03:05 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 10:26 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 08:13 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 15:36 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 12:11 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 09:28 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:47 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:07 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 06:52 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 16:49 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-23 08:13 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-23 07:50 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:59 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 05:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 15:56 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-24 15:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 02:07 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:54 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:07 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:29 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:04 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:02 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 08:48 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 14:48 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:11 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:28 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:13 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-01 08:36 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:03 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 17:58 +1100
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:46 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-03 07:02 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 07:24 +1100
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 07:55 +1100
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 16:08 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-05 17:39 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-08 21:28 +1100
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-08 19:04 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:34 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 07:25 +1100
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 08:55 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:44 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:13 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:31 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:16 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:03 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 02:48 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:18 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 15:16 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-08 05:57 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:53 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:47 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-08 20:12 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 00:22 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-09 00:47 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:21 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-09 06:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 12:30 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 15:14 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 22:59 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-13 10:31 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-13 10:05 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 10:30 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-09 07:19 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 12:45 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 15:16 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-13 10:17 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 15:14 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-14 05:12 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 11:54 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-14 13:53 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 08:48 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:42 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-16 05:28 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 08:47 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 16:14 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 16:30 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-16 12:27 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:41 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-16 13:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 15:33 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-17 05:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:16 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-18 06:49 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 10:15 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 21:53 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-13 11:00 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 18:11 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-14 13:56 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 08:39 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 02:44 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-09 13:46 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-09 05:49 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-09 06:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-09 15:47 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-10 05:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 10:46 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 00:55 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-10 11:56 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 06:57 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-11 09:27 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute thomas789@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 02:26 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-13 21:10 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 13:09 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-07 14:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 10:25 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-09 06:08 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:29 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-10 05:00 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:00 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-12 07:07 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 12:24 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-12 13:32 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 15:37 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-13 10:26 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 15:21 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 03:15 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:26 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:30 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-25 07:02 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 15:22 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 09:19 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-26 20:35 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-27 08:21 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 05:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-27 16:26 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 07:54 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 05:18 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 17:21 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-08 13:13 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:31 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-09 08:45 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 06:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-06 20:33 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-07 04:52 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-07 13:32 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-07 07:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-07 19:02 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 16:29 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-08 05:43 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:48 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 09:59 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 13:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 21:35 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-27 22:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 06:31 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:22 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 22:59 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 03:18 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 06:11 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-28 02:52 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-28 02:59 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 06:22 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-29 00:48 +0000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:35 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:22 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-23 20:18 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 07:13 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 13:31 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 03:23 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 20:44 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 09:13 +1000
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 14:00 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 13:02 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-24 08:03 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:54 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 13:33 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:50 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 14:03 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 16:18 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 19:12 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-24 19:00 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-25 12:21 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 06:57 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-25 17:44 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 09:47 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-25 19:48 +0200
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:42 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 09:52 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 12:21 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 13:49 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:57 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 16:22 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 21:23 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 15:14 -0500
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-26 13:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 17:28 -0500
Page 30 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 28 29 [30] 31 32 … 34 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nqugvk$1jai$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391872 |
On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> OK so contraction is not material. >>>> >>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical >>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or >>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical >>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, >>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, >>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction >>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of >>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. >>>> >>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described >>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also >>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means >>>> what I've described above. >>> >>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment >>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? >> >> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is >> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment >> cannot possibly line up at the same time. > > You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that > length contraction is real. Yes. It is real. > So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an explanation. > Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect Yes. > and > projection effect is an apparent effect. He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. > ....are you disagreeing with Tom? No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is right, the stuff you add is wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 05:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2503f35-19d2-41eb-bdb5-9193b7b705fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391883 |
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>> OK so contraction is not material. > >>>> > >>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical > >>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or > >>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical > >>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, > >>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, > >>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction > >>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of > >>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. > >>>> > >>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described > >>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also > >>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means > >>>> what I've described above. > >>> > >>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment > >>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? > >> > >> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is > >> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment > >> cannot possibly line up at the same time. > > > > You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that > > length contraction is real. > > Yes. It is real. Projection is not real. > > > So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? > > That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an > explanation. Yes that's exactly what is going on.....SR math predicts that a moving meter stick is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma and this contraction is interpreted as that the meter stick is oriented at the exact angle to fit through a door way. Such interpretation is fatally faulted....better interpretation is that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the assumption that the ;right-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. > > > Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect > > Yes. > > > and > > projection effect is an apparent effect. > > He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. Idiot....Projected length is an apparent effect. > > > ....are you disagreeing with Tom? > > No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your > own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is > right, the stuff you add is wrong. No what I said is right. > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 18:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr4nlf$n97$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391963 |
On 9/10/2016 7:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>>>> OK so contraction is not material. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical >>>>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or >>>>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical >>>>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, >>>>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, >>>>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction >>>>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of >>>>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described >>>>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also >>>>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means >>>>>> what I've described above. >>>>> >>>>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment >>>>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? >>>> >>>> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is >>>> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment >>>> cannot possibly line up at the same time. >>> >>> You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that >>> length contraction is real. >> >> Yes. It is real. > > Projection is not real. Yes, it is, and I have no idea where you get off making such a ridiculous claim. >> >>> So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? >> >> That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an >> explanation. > > Yes that's exactly what is going on.....SR math predicts that a moving meter stick is contracted > by a factor of 1/gamma and this contraction is interpreted as that the meter stick is oriented > at the exact angle to fit through a door way. No. You have not understood the analogy at all. Sorry. It was pointless for him to have ever presented to you. > Such interpretation is fatally faulted....better interpretation is that the light-path length of > a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the > assumption that the ;right-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. >> >>> Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect >> >> Yes. >> >>> and >>> projection effect is an apparent effect. >> >> He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. > > Idiot....Projected length is an apparent effect. That's what YOU say. And what YOU say is wrong. >> >>> ....are you disagreeing with Tom? >> >> No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your >> own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is >> right, the stuff you add is wrong. > > No what I said is right. Sorry, but no. You are consistently, flatly wrong. >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c4e76ab-8e5b-4591-9b2a-4de089506e1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392099 |
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/10/2016 7:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> OK so contraction is not material. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical > >>>>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or > >>>>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical > >>>>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, > >>>>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, > >>>>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction > >>>>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of > >>>>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described > >>>>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also > >>>>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means > >>>>>> what I've described above. > >>>>> > >>>>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment > >>>>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? > >>>> > >>>> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is > >>>> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment > >>>> cannot possibly line up at the same time. > >>> > >>> You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that > >>> length contraction is real. > >> > >> Yes. It is real. > > > > Projection is not real. > > Yes, it is, and I have no idea where you get off making such a > ridiculous claim. Idiot....that's why it is called "projection" > > >> > >>> So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? > >> > >> That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an > >> explanation. > > > > Yes that's exactly what is going on.....SR math predicts that a moving meter stick is contracted > > by a factor of 1/gamma and this contraction is interpreted as that the meter stick is oriented > > at the exact angle to fit through a door way. > > No. You have not understood the analogy at all. Sorry. It was pointless > for him to have ever presented to you. I understand that physicists just invented an analogy to fit observation. No analogy is needed there is no material contraction. The IRT explanation for the length contraction equation: the light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be shorter than the light-path length of the observer's meter stick by a factor of 1/gamma. This e prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observe's meter stick is its material length. > > > Such interpretation is fatally faulted....better interpretation is that the light-path length of > > a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the > > assumption that the ;right-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. > >> > >>> Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >>> and > >>> projection effect is an apparent effect. > >> > >> He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. > > > > Idiot....Projected length is an apparent effect. > > That's what YOU say. And what YOU say is wrong. > > >> > >>> ....are you disagreeing with Tom? > >> > >> No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your > >> own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is > >> right, the stuff you add is wrong. > > > > No what I said is right. > > Sorry, but no. You are consistently, flatly wrong. > ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 12:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr6ocl$1ug0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392142 |
On 9/12/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/10/2016 7:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> OK so contraction is not material. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical >>>>>>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or >>>>>>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical >>>>>>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, >>>>>>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, >>>>>>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction >>>>>>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of >>>>>>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described >>>>>>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also >>>>>>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means >>>>>>>> what I've described above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment >>>>>>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is >>>>>> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment >>>>>> cannot possibly line up at the same time. >>>>> >>>>> You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that >>>>> length contraction is real. >>>> >>>> Yes. It is real. >>> >>> Projection is not real. >> >> Yes, it is, and I have no idea where you get off making such a >> ridiculous claim. > > Idiot....that's why it is called "projection" To you "projection" means "not real"? When did you make that up? Physicists don't agree with you. >> >>>> >>>>> So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? >>>> >>>> That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an >>>> explanation. >>> >>> Yes that's exactly what is going on.....SR math predicts that a moving meter stick is contracted >>> by a factor of 1/gamma and this contraction is interpreted as that the meter stick is oriented >>> at the exact angle to fit through a door way. >> >> No. You have not understood the analogy at all. Sorry. It was pointless >> for him to have ever presented to you. > > I understand that physicists just invented an analogy to fit observation. No. You do not understand the analogy. Give up. > No analogy is needed > there is no material contraction. The IRT explanation for the length contraction equation: the > light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be shorter than the light-path length of > the observer's meter stick by a factor of 1/gamma. This e prediction is based on the assumption > that the light-path length of the observe's meter stick is its material length. > >> >>> Such interpretation is fatally faulted....better interpretation is that the light-path length of >>> a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the >>> assumption that the ;right-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. >>>> >>>>> Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> and >>>>> projection effect is an apparent effect. >>>> >>>> He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. >>> >>> Idiot....Projected length is an apparent effect. >> >> That's what YOU say. And what YOU say is wrong. >> >>>> >>>>> ....are you disagreeing with Tom? >>>> >>>> No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your >>>> own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is >>>> right, the stuff you add is wrong. >>> >>> No what I said is right. >> >> Sorry, but no. You are consistently, flatly wrong. >> > > ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84ecf772-2aab-4ea7-b71c-b6d11e82f50b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392161 |
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:24:40 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/10/2016 7:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> OK so contraction is not material. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical > >>>>>>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or > >>>>>>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical > >>>>>>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, > >>>>>>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, > >>>>>>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction > >>>>>>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of > >>>>>>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described > >>>>>>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also > >>>>>>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means > >>>>>>>> what I've described above. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment > >>>>>>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is > >>>>>> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment > >>>>>> cannot possibly line up at the same time. > >>>>> > >>>>> You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that > >>>>> length contraction is real. > >>>> > >>>> Yes. It is real. > >>> > >>> Projection is not real. > >> > >> Yes, it is, and I have no idea where you get off making such a > >> ridiculous claim. > > > > Idiot....that's why it is called "projection" > > To you "projection" means "not real"? When did you make that up? > Physicists don't agree with you. Like watching a movie....the people on the screen are not real people.... they are projection of the real people. Now if you go to a live play the people on the stage are real people.....get it? > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? > >>>> > >>>> That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an > >>>> explanation. > >>> > >>> Yes that's exactly what is going on.....SR math predicts that a moving meter stick is contracted > >>> by a factor of 1/gamma and this contraction is interpreted as that the meter stick is oriented > >>> at the exact angle to fit through a door way. > >> > >> No. You have not understood the analogy at all. Sorry. It was pointless > >> for him to have ever presented to you. > > > > I understand that physicists just invented an analogy to fit observation. > > No. You do not understand the analogy. Give up. Yes I do understand the analogy but it is wrong to interpret it as an analogy for length contraction. > > > No analogy is needed > > there is no material contraction. The IRT explanation for the length contraction equation: the > > light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be shorter than the light-path length of > > the observer's meter stick by a factor of 1/gamma. This e prediction is based on the assumption > > that the light-path length of the observe's meter stick is its material length. > > > >> > >>> Such interpretation is fatally faulted....better interpretation is that the light-path length of > >>> a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the > >>> assumption that the ;right-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. > >>>> > >>>>> Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect > >>>> > >>>> Yes. > >>>> > >>>>> and > >>>>> projection effect is an apparent effect. > >>>> > >>>> He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. > >>> > >>> Idiot....Projected length is an apparent effect. > >> > >> That's what YOU say. And what YOU say is wrong. > >> > >>>> > >>>>> ....are you disagreeing with Tom? > >>>> > >>>> No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your > >>>> own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is > >>>> right, the stuff you add is wrong. > >>> > >>> No what I said is right. > >> > >> Sorry, but no. You are consistently, flatly wrong. > >> > > > > ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr73n6$ifb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392169 |
On 9/12/2016 3:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:24:40 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/10/2016 7:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OK so contraction is not material. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical >>>>>>>>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or >>>>>>>>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical >>>>>>>>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, >>>>>>>>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, >>>>>>>>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction >>>>>>>>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of >>>>>>>>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described >>>>>>>>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also >>>>>>>>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means >>>>>>>>>> what I've described above. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment >>>>>>>>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is >>>>>>>> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment >>>>>>>> cannot possibly line up at the same time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that >>>>>>> length contraction is real. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. It is real. >>>>> >>>>> Projection is not real. >>>> >>>> Yes, it is, and I have no idea where you get off making such a >>>> ridiculous claim. >>> >>> Idiot....that's why it is called "projection" >> >> To you "projection" means "not real"? When did you make that up? >> Physicists don't agree with you. > > Like watching a movie....the people on the screen are not real people.... they are > projection of the real people. Now if you go to a live play the people on the stage > are real people.....get it? Ken, projection in the context that Tom (and physicists) are talking about does not mean shining light through a transparent film onto a white screen. Yes, physicists invented (a long time before you were born) a DIFFERENT meaning for "projection" than shining a light through transparent film onto a white screen. Why haven't you learned that different meaning? If you don't know what the words mean, then why are you using them? > >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an >>>>>> explanation. >>>>> >>>>> Yes that's exactly what is going on.....SR math predicts that a moving meter stick is contracted >>>>> by a factor of 1/gamma and this contraction is interpreted as that the meter stick is oriented >>>>> at the exact angle to fit through a door way. >>>> >>>> No. You have not understood the analogy at all. Sorry. It was pointless >>>> for him to have ever presented to you. >>> >>> I understand that physicists just invented an analogy to fit observation. >> >> No. You do not understand the analogy. Give up. > > Yes I do understand the analogy but it is wrong to interpret it as an analogy for length contraction. Then drop it if it doesn't work for you or confuses you. > >> >>> No analogy is needed >>> there is no material contraction. The IRT explanation for the length contraction equation: the >>> light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be shorter than the light-path length of >>> the observer's meter stick by a factor of 1/gamma. This e prediction is based on the assumption >>> that the light-path length of the observe's meter stick is its material length. >>> >>>> >>>>> Such interpretation is fatally faulted....better interpretation is that the light-path length of >>>>> a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the >>>>> assumption that the ;right-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> projection effect is an apparent effect. >>>>>> >>>>>> He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....Projected length is an apparent effect. >>>> >>>> That's what YOU say. And what YOU say is wrong. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ....are you disagreeing with Tom? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your >>>>>> own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is >>>>>> right, the stuff you add is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> No what I said is right. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but no. You are consistently, flatly wrong. >>>> >>> >>> ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <312cca11-36bc-45b1-b03d-f78a56ea950a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392170 |
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 4:38:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/2016 3:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:24:40 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/12/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/10/2016 7:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> OK so contraction is not material. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical > >>>>>>>>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or > >>>>>>>>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical > >>>>>>>>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, > >>>>>>>>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, > >>>>>>>>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction > >>>>>>>>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of > >>>>>>>>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described > >>>>>>>>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also > >>>>>>>>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means > >>>>>>>>>> what I've described above. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment > >>>>>>>>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is > >>>>>>>> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment > >>>>>>>> cannot possibly line up at the same time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that > >>>>>>> length contraction is real. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes. It is real. > >>>>> > >>>>> Projection is not real. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, it is, and I have no idea where you get off making such a > >>>> ridiculous claim. > >>> > >>> Idiot....that's why it is called "projection" > >> > >> To you "projection" means "not real"? When did you make that up? > >> Physicists don't agree with you. > > > > Like watching a movie....the people on the screen are not real people.... they are > > projection of the real people. Now if you go to a live play the people on the stage > > are real people.....get it? > > Ken, projection in the context that Tom (and physicists) are talking > about does not mean shining light through a transparent film onto a > white screen. Not only that....they also invented that geometric projection is length contraction. > > Yes, physicists invented (a long time before you were born) a DIFFERENT > meaning for "projection" than shining a light through transparent film > onto a white screen. Why haven't you learned that different meaning? That's because you SRians have different meanings for length contraction.....this is evident that after 100 years of explanations you still not able to explain the concept of length contraction correctly. > > If you don't know what the words mean, then why are you using them? > > > > >> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an > >>>>>> explanation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes that's exactly what is going on.....SR math predicts that a moving meter stick is contracted > >>>>> by a factor of 1/gamma and this contraction is interpreted as that the meter stick is oriented > >>>>> at the exact angle to fit through a door way. > >>>> > >>>> No. You have not understood the analogy at all. Sorry. It was pointless > >>>> for him to have ever presented to you. > >>> > >>> I understand that physicists just invented an analogy to fit observation. > >> > >> No. You do not understand the analogy. Give up. > > > > Yes I do understand the analogy but it is wrong to interpret it as an analogy for length contraction. > > Then drop it if it doesn't work for you or confuses you. > > > > >> > >>> No analogy is needed > >>> there is no material contraction. The IRT explanation for the length contraction equation: the > >>> light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be shorter than the light-path length of > >>> the observer's meter stick by a factor of 1/gamma. This e prediction is based on the assumption > >>> that the light-path length of the observe's meter stick is its material length. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> Such interpretation is fatally faulted....better interpretation is that the light-path length of > >>>>> a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the > >>>>> assumption that the ;right-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> projection effect is an apparent effect. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot....Projected length is an apparent effect. > >>>> > >>>> That's what YOU say. And what YOU say is wrong. > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ....are you disagreeing with Tom? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your > >>>>>> own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is > >>>>>> right, the stuff you add is wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> No what I said is right. > >>>> > >>>> Sorry, but no. You are consistently, flatly wrong. > >>>> > >>> > >>> ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 15:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr9n3q$vrc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392232 |
On 9/13/2016 12:26 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 4:38:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 3:32 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:24:40 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:00:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/10/2016 7:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK so contraction is not material. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's right. Material contraction would be the result of a physical >>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with the object, such as applied compressive force or >>>>>>>>>>>> cooling. Relativistic length contraction does not involve any physical >>>>>>>>>>>> interaction like this, and so is not material contraction. Furthermore, >>>>>>>>>>>> material contraction would be observable in all reference frames, >>>>>>>>>>>> including the rest frame of the object. Relativistic length contraction >>>>>>>>>>>> is different in all reference frames and is zero in the rest frame of >>>>>>>>>>>> the object, and so is not material length contraction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please notice what material length contraction MEANS, as described >>>>>>>>>>>> above. It does not mean "any contraction of a material object". It also >>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean "contraction as measured by a material ruler". It means >>>>>>>>>>>> what I've described above. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So no material contraction means that the ends of the rods in Henry's experiment >>>>>>>>>>> will be concise perfectly.....so the bogus concept of RoS is refuted.....right? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not at all! The contraction is real, but it is not material. Since it is >>>>>>>>>> still real, then the ends of the rods in Henry's thought experiment >>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly line up at the same time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You objected when I said that length contraction is apparent....now you say that >>>>>>>>> length contraction is real. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. It is real. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Projection is not real. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it is, and I have no idea where you get off making such a >>>>>> ridiculous claim. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....that's why it is called "projection" >>>> >>>> To you "projection" means "not real"? When did you make that up? >>>> Physicists don't agree with you. >>> >>> Like watching a movie....the people on the screen are not real people.... they are >>> projection of the real people. Now if you go to a live play the people on the stage >>> are real people.....get it? >> >> Ken, projection in the context that Tom (and physicists) are talking >> about does not mean shining light through a transparent film onto a >> white screen. > > > Not only that....they also invented that geometric projection is length contraction. You have it backwards. >> >> Yes, physicists invented (a long time before you were born) a DIFFERENT >> meaning for "projection" than shining a light through transparent film >> onto a white screen. Why haven't you learned that different meaning? > > That's because you SRians have different meanings for length contraction..... No, they don't. > this is evident that after 100 years of explanations you still not able > to explain the concept of length contraction correctly. Bullshit. It is easily explained. You don't UNDERSTAND the explanations. But then again, you don't understand ratios of negative numbers, but that doesn't mean that 900 years of explanation have failed. Just because YOU don't understand something does NOT mean that there is a problem explaining it. > >> >> If you don't know what the words mean, then why are you using them? >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not what's going on here. You confuse a weak analogy with an >>>>>>>> explanation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes that's exactly what is going on.....SR math predicts that a moving meter stick is contracted >>>>>>> by a factor of 1/gamma and this contraction is interpreted as that the meter stick is oriented >>>>>>> at the exact angle to fit through a door way. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. You have not understood the analogy at all. Sorry. It was pointless >>>>>> for him to have ever presented to you. >>>>> >>>>> I understand that physicists just invented an analogy to fit observation. >>>> >>>> No. You do not understand the analogy. Give up. >>> >>> Yes I do understand the analogy but it is wrong to interpret it as an analogy for length contraction. >> >> Then drop it if it doesn't work for you or confuses you. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> No analogy is needed >>>>> there is no material contraction. The IRT explanation for the length contraction equation: the >>>>> light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be shorter than the light-path length of >>>>> the observer's meter stick by a factor of 1/gamma. This e prediction is based on the assumption >>>>> that the light-path length of the observe's meter stick is its material length. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Such interpretation is fatally faulted....better interpretation is that the light-path length of >>>>>>> a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the >>>>>>> assumption that the ;right-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> projection effect is an apparent effect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He didn't say a projection effect is an apparent effect. You did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot....Projected length is an apparent effect. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's what YOU say. And what YOU say is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ....are you disagreeing with Tom? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I'm disagreeing with you. You are saying silly things, adding your >>>>>>>> own statements to what relativity says. The part that relativity says is >>>>>>>> right, the stuff you add is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No what I said is right. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but no. You are consistently, flatly wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a58194b1-cb1f-4b16-8630-5fbc116aa34e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390758 |
On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?.... > but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod > with the moving material length of L/gamma to reach the bogus > assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all. Idiot ken, you fail to use appropriately the word, or concept of "material". Forget about the word "material" since it confuses you. SR says nothing about "material". Length contraction, or the gamma factor simply relates to the *value* you will obtain after a certain procedure is performed. To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain. Asking "is the value material ? " makes no sense and is irrelevant. So, to make it clear for your pea brain, I am ORDERING you to NEVER use the expression "material length" again. Understood!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 03:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npkkmi$9cd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390763 |
On 25/08/16 02:06, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?.... >> but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod >> with the moving material length of L/gamma to reach the bogus >> assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all. > > Idiot ken, you fail to use appropriately the word, or concept of > "material". Forget about the word "material" since it confuses you. > > SR says nothing about "material". Length contraction, or the gamma > factor simply relates to the *value* you will obtain after a certain > procedure is performed. > > To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain > procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain. ...and SR predicts wrongly. However SR correctly predicts that nothing at all happens to the rods during a speed change. Therefore the two ends must line up at the same absolute instant no matter what their relative speed might be. SR's predictions are based entirely on the transforms which are derived from an assumption that simultaneity is not a physical effect at all but is defined by what human eyes perceive. That notion is laughable. > Asking "is the value material ? " makes no sense and is irrelevant. > So, to make it clear for your pea brain, I am ORDERING you to NEVER > use the expression "material length" again. Understood!? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eec8d167-2ff9-4f8a-a920-0d59563adb07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390770 |
On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:15:01 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 25/08/16 02:06, rotchm wrote: > > To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain > > procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain. > > ...and SR predicts wrongly. Ken is clueless and funny. You are just a reality denier and boring. Because of my beliefs in SR, I have a few condos, luxury cars & motor bikes, and always on vacation. What have your beliefs brought you? Believe in that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 04:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npkp40$gsc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390773 |
On 25/08/16 03:26, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:15:01 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. > wrote: >> On 25/08/16 02:06, rotchm wrote: > >>> To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain >>> procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain. >> >> ...and SR predicts wrongly. > > Ken is clueless and funny. You are just a reality denier and boring. > > Because of my beliefs in SR, I have a few condos, luxury cars & > motor bikes, and always on vacation. What have your beliefs brought > you? Idiot! You're just a grubby little dole bludger who lurks around internet cafes. I'm the one with the two luxury cars and the mansion in paradise. > Believe in that! >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc325a92-bc4b-41e0-a0c4-043cd96b59f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390773 |
On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 10:26:22 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > Because of my beliefs in SR, I have a few condos, luxury cars & motor bikes, and always on vacation. Talk about Pinocchio!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 15:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npkvlr$s6e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390770 |
On 8/24/2016 12:15 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > ...and SR predicts wrongly. > However SR correctly predicts that nothing at all happens to the rods > during a speed change. The length changes with speed of the rod relative to the observer. There is no physical interaction happening to the rod to cause that change, but it is nevertheless real and measured. Your statement that "nothing at all happens to the rods" is a statement that is so vague that it is wrong. > Therefore the two ends must line up at the same > absolute instant no matter what their relative speed might be. > > SR's predictions are based entirely on the transforms which are derived > from an assumption that simultaneity is not a physical effect at all but > is defined by what human eyes perceive. Heck no, it has nothing to do with what eyes perceive, in SR. > That notion is laughable. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 09:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npqipr$1tcp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390791 |
On 25/08/16 06:22, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/24/2016 12:15 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> ...and SR predicts wrongly. However SR correctly predicts that >> nothing at all happens to the rods during a speed change. > > The length changes with speed of the rod relative to the observer. > There is no physical interaction happening to the rod to cause that > change, but it is nevertheless real and measured. > > Your statement that "nothing at all happens to the rods" is a > statement that is so vague that it is wrong. Well let me put it another way. A rod is exacly the same rod in every respect after it has undergone a speed change. >> Therefore the two ends must line up at the same absolute instant no >> matter what their relative speed might be. >> >> SR's predictions are based entirely on the transforms which are >> derived from an assumption that simultaneity is not a physical >> effect at all but is defined by what human eyes perceive. > > Heck no, it has nothing to do with what eyes perceive, in SR. ...but SR is based on the RoS which is based on what human eyes perceive. Didn't you know that? >> That notion is laughable. SR is laughable > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 20:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95c6208c-93b4-4dce-b0d2-b20adda97cac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391018 |
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 5:19:27 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > ...but SR is based on the RoS No, it's not, abysmally-stupid lying weasel. It is a consequence of the two postulates of SR, which have NEVER been refuted and all experiments confirm them. My, but you are fatally dishonest. You are SO laughable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nprbht$ch$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #391026 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:95c6208c-93b4-4dce-b0d2-b20adda97cac@googlegroups.com... |No, it's not, abysmally-stupid lying weasel. It is a consequence of the |two postulates of SR, which have NEVER been refuted and all experiments |confirm them. My, but you are fatally dishonest. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. As the clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, time (as defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean with a precision of an acceptable error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 05:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49a2c5bc-934b-4815-b937-0569acafe0c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391034 |
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:21:50 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:95c6208c-93b4-4dce-b0d2-b20adda97cac@googlegroups.com... > > > > No, it's not, abysmally-stupid lying weasel. It is a consequence of the > > two postulates of SR, which have NEVER been refuted and all experiments > > confirm them. My, but you are fatally dishonest. > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Nope, really stupid fool. Anyone with a brain can figure out that I spoke the truth and that you are a liar and have a dysfunctional brain. > As the clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, time (as defined by your idiot > guru himself) is galilean with a precision of an acceptable error. Another lie, but what else can be expected of a brainless liar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 16:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nps7uo$su9$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #391044 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:49a2c5bc-934b-4815-b937-0569acafe0c4@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:21:50 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:95c6208c-93b4-4dce-b0d2-b20adda97cac@googlegroups.com... > > > > No, it's not, abysmally-stupid lying weasel. It is a consequence of the > > two postulates of SR, which have NEVER been refuted and all experiments > > confirm them. My, but you are fatally dishonest. > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. |Nope, really stupid fool. Anyone with a brain can figure out that I spoke |the truth and that you are a liar and have a dysfunctional brain. Nope, really stupid fool. Anyone with a brain can figure out that I spoke the truth and that you are a liar and have a dysfunctional brain. > As the clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, time (as defined by your idiot > guru himself) is galilean with a precision of an acceptable error. |Another lie, but what else can be expected of a brainless liar? Another lie, but what else can be expected of a brainless liar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 30 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 28 29 [30] 31 32 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web