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 29 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 34 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 18:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrb0o7$12um$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392164 |
On 13/09/16 03:45, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/9/16 9/9/16 - 9:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >> So do you agree that length contraction is an apparent effect? > > No. Because of the ambiguity in the word "apparent". > > As I keep telling you and you keep forgetting, "length contraction" > is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION, and it behaves exactly as such > projections behave. So, for instance, if you want to carry a ladder > through a doorway, what matters is the geometrical projection of the > ladder's length onto the width of the doorway -- rotating the ladder > does NOT change the ladder, but does change that projection. ...pathetic! > It's difficult to come up with a similar physical situation for > "length contraction", except for various gedankens. The "pole and > barn" does so -- it is in principle possible for a 40 meter pole to > be wholly contained within a 20 meter barn, if it moves fast enough > relative to the barn. This OBVIOUSLY has to do with measuring the > containment simultaneously in the barn frame. (and there must be open > doors for the pole to move through, etc.). That "simultaneously" is > performing a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION of the pole's length onto the > barn frame. Nothing at all happens to a rod during a speed change. It is exactly the same before and after. Therefore the rod can never fit inside the barn...which proves that any theory which says it will must be complete nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 13:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrbkug$t3r$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392296 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 13/09/16 03:45, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 9/9/16 9/9/16 - 9:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >> It's difficult to come up with a similar physical situation for >> "length contraction", except for various gedankens. The "pole and >> barn" does so -- it is in principle possible for a 40 meter pole to >> be wholly contained within a 20 meter barn, if it moves fast enough >> relative to the barn. This OBVIOUSLY has to do with measuring the >> containment simultaneously in the barn frame. (and there must be open >> doors for the pole to move through, etc.). That "simultaneously" is >> performing a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION of the pole's length onto the >> barn frame. >Nothing at all happens to a rod during a speed change. It is exactly the >same before and after. >Therefore the rod can never fit inside the barn...which proves that any >theory which says it will must be complete nonsense. Nothing at all happens to a ladder during a rotation. It is exactly the same before and after. Therefore the ladder can never fit through the doorway...which proves that any theory which says it will must be complete nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 08:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrcjj4$aim$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392321 |
On 14/09/16 23:56, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: >> Therefore the rod can never fit inside the barn...which proves that any >> theory which says it will must be complete nonsense. > > Nothing at all happens to a ladder during a rotation. It is exactly the > same before and after. > > Therefore the ladder can never fit through the doorway...which proves that any > theory which says it will must be complete nonsense. Einstein doesn't rotate the rod in space....and time has nothing whatsoever to do with this. The rod will never fit in the barn and Einstein's whole theory is crap. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 02:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrfma8$5rq$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392369 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 14/09/16 23:56, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@....> writes: >>> Therefore the rod can never fit inside the barn...which proves that any >>> theory which says it will must be complete nonsense. >> >> Nothing at all happens to a ladder during a rotation. It is exactly the >> same before and after. >> >> Therefore the ladder can never fit through the doorway...which proves that any >> theory which says it will must be complete nonsense. >Einstein doesn't rotate the rod in space....and time has nothing >whatsoever to do with this. That's where you are wrong, Ralph. Einstein's SR is based on the whole idea that time does act in some ways to another direction. Since SR is so successful at predicting things within its realm of applicability, it's quite certain he was correct about that. >The rod will never fit in the barn and Einstein's whole theory is crap. >-- >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 13:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nqu7ev$srb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #391816 |
On 08.09.2016 22:47, Thomas wrote: > On Thursday, 8 September 2016 16:53:03 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> It is incorrect to say that I don't know what is contracting. The length >> is contracting. It is not a material contraction, but the length >> contraction is real nonetheless. There are contractions that are real >> and not material. > > Moving relatively to an object can not make it shorter: if the distance between two markings on a ruler is x, it will stay at x if you start accelerating as both markers move the same distance in a given time. Quite right. The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object in any way, but it can affect the observer's measurements of the observed object. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8cccb238-44b6-469c-8131-c8648eef338f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391863 |
W dniu piątek, 9 września 2016 13:46:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > > Moving relatively to an object can not make it shorter: if the distance between two markings on a ruler is x, it will stay at x if you start accelerating as both markers move the same distance in a given time. > > Quite right. > The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object > in any way, but it can affect the observer's measurements of > the observed object. So "length of an object is a result of measurement" is just another common sense prejudice refuted by your moronic bunch, I guess? > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 06:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b9e3822-d58f-4e4f-81c5-07b81bf44229@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391863 |
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:46:41 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 08.09.2016 22:47, Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, 8 September 2016 16:53:03 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> It is incorrect to say that I don't know what is contracting. The length > >> is contracting. It is not a material contraction, but the length > >> contraction is real nonetheless. There are contractions that are real > >> and not material. > > > > Moving relatively to an object can not make it shorter: if the distance between two markings on a ruler is x, it will stay at x if you start accelerating as both markers move the same distance in a given time. > > Quite right. > The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object > in any way, but it can affect the observer's measurements of > the observed object. I object the use of the word measurement....it is more appropriate to say that "it can affect the observer's observation" In any case do you agree that length contraction is an apparent effect? As such it cannot be used to get the bogus concept of RoS?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 15:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nqulj3$iht$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #391876 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:46:41 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Quite right. >> The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object >> in any way, but it can affect the observer's measurements of >> the observed object. >I object the use of the word measurement....it is more appropriate to say >that "it can affect the observer's observation" A measurement is a kind of observation. There is no reason beyond technology why the observer can't measure the object. >In any case do you agree that length contraction is an apparent effect? It is real. The observer will measure a contracted length, and effects are different because the length is contracted. Think of a man carrying a long pole horizontally on his shoulders. The man with pole cannot fit through a doorway. But if he rotates himself 90 degrees he can walk through the doorway sideways. The pole's short "width" when rotated is real. It has real effects such as being able to fit through the doorway. The pole's short "width" when rotated is not material. The pole has not changed in any way, in its own frame it is just as long as it ever was. Length contraction/time dilation are also rotations, but between the length and time dimensions, not between two length dimensions. The contracted length is real but not material. >As such it cannot be used to get the bogus concept of RoS? False.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 05:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ce477cd-6d66-4920-a4b2-df2901fe44c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391888 |
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 11:48:53 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:46:41 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> Quite right. > >> The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object > >> in any way, but it can affect the observer's measurements of > >> the observed object. > > >I object the use of the word measurement....it is more appropriate to say > >that "it can affect the observer's observation" > > A measurement is a kind of observation. There is no reason beyond technology > why the observer can't measure the object. No a measurement implies a physical procedure whereas a projection is purely mathematical. > > >In any case do you agree that length contraction is an apparent effect? > > It is real. The observer will measure a contracted length, and > effects are different because the length is contracted. No it is not real.....it is a projected length and nothing is contracted. > > Think of a man carrying a long pole horizontally on his shoulders. > The man with pole cannot fit through a doorway. But if he rotates > himself 90 degrees he can walk through the doorway sideways. No such door way in SR math..... A better way to interpret the contraction equation is the IRT method: The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma and this prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. > > The pole's short "width" when rotated is real. It has real effects > such as being able to fit through the doorway. The pole's short > "width" when rotated is not material. The pole has not changed in > any way, in its own frame it is just as long as it ever was. > > Length contraction/time dilation are also rotations, but between > the length and time dimensions, not between two length dimensions. > The contracted length is real but not material. > > >As such it cannot be used to get the bogus concept of RoS? > > False.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3476ad68-3ccd-4a88-92a1-9c66e300662a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391863 |
On Friday, 9 September 2016 11:46:41 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Quite right. > The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object > in any way, but it can affect the observer's measurements of > the observed object. > > -- > Paul The observer must measure the same, whether he is moving or not with regard to the object: assume that initially (i.e. observer at rest with regard to the rod) has the end points at his coordinates x1=0 and x2=L, he measures the length as x2-x1=L After he starts accelerating with acceleration a with regard to the rod, he will measure the endpoints after time t at x1 = 1/2*a*t^2 x2= L + 1/3*a*t^2 so again x2-x1 = L i.e. the measured length does not change. If you would measure a different length, then you must have taken the readings of the endpoints at different times. And this is indeed what Relativity implies, but it has obviously nothing to do with a length measurement anymore (which by definition requires simultaneous readings of the two endpoints by the observer).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 00:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bafbcea2-6e44-4bba-bfd6-09b18431810d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391895 |
On Friday, 9 September 2016 17:46:18 UTC, Thomas wrote: > On Friday, 9 September 2016 11:46:41 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Quite right. > > The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object > > in any way, but it can affect the observer's measurements of > > the observed object. > > > > -- > > Paul > > The observer must measure the same, whether he is moving or not with regard to the object: > > assume that initially (i.e. observer at rest with regard to the rod) has the end points at his coordinates x1=0 and x2=L, he measures the length as > > x2-x1=L > > After he starts accelerating with acceleration a with regard to the rod, he will measure the endpoints after time t at > > x1 = 1/2*a*t^2 > x2= L + 1/3*a*t^2 > > so again > > x2-x1 = L > > i.e. the measured length does not change. > If you would measure a different length, then you must have taken the readings of the endpoints at different times. And this is indeed what Relativity implies, but it has obviously nothing to do with a length measurement anymore (which by definition requires simultaneous readings of the two endpoints by the observer). I noticed a typo in the equations, so here everything again: The observer must measure the same, whether he is moving or not with regard to the object: assume that initially (observer at rest with regard to the rod) the end points at his observer's coordinates x1=0 and x2=L, he measures the length as x2-x1=L After he starts accelerating with acceleration a with regard to the rod, he will measure the endpoints after time t at x1 = 1/2*a*t^2 x2= L + 1/2*a*t^2 so again x2-x1 = L i.e. the measured length does not change. If you would measure a different length, then you must have taken the readings of the endpoints at different times. And this is indeed what Relativity implies, but it has obviously nothing to do with a length measurement anymore (which by definition requires simultaneous readings of the two endpoints by the observer).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 11:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nr0lda$eqk$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #391895 |
On 09.09.2016 19:46, Thomas wrote: > On Friday, 9 September 2016 11:46:41 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Quite right. >> The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object >> in any way, but it can affect the observer's measurements of >> the observed object. >> >> -- >> Paul > > The observer must measure the same, whether he is moving or not with regard to the object: > > assume that initially (i.e. observer at rest with regard to the rod) has the end points at his coordinates x1=0 and x2=L, he measures the length as > > x2-x1=L > > After he starts accelerating with acceleration a with regard to the rod, he will measure the endpoints after time t at > > x1 = 1/2*a*t^2 > x2= L + 1/3*a*t^2 > > so again > > x2-x1 = L https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf > i.e. the measured length does not change. > If you would measure a different length, then you must have taken the readings of the endpoints at different times. And this is indeed what Relativity implies, but it has obviously nothing to do with a length measurement anymore (which by definition requires simultaneous readings of the two endpoints by the observer). > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 06:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e329d2dd-78c9-4dbb-8a87-17646d9a3ab1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391955 |
On Saturday, 10 September 2016 09:56:59 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf > Your reference misses the point here. We are not interested at all in the clocks at the endpoints of the rod, nor their coordinates in the latter's frame. Only in the location of the endpoints in the observer's frame. And the distance between those coordinates can not change by virtue of the observer accelerating, because both endpoints move by the same distance within a given time for the observer (as his acceleration is by definition the same with regard to either endpoint).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 09:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nr311m$qe$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #391966 |
On 10.09.2016 15:57, Thomas wrote: > On Saturday, 10 September 2016 09:56:59 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf >> > > > Your reference misses the point here. > We are not interested at all in the clocks at the endpoints of the rod, > nor their coordinates in the latter's frame. > Only in the location of the endpoints in the observer's frame. You obviously didn't read it properly. You can obviously consider the clocks to be at the ends of a rod with proper length L. The the position of the clocks (endpoints of rod) and thus the length of the rod (distance between the clocks) in the frame where the clocks are moving (frame K', the observer's frame) is given in every case. > And the distance between those coordinates can not change by > virtue of the observer accelerating, because both endpoints move > by the same distance within a given time for the observer >(as his acceleration is by definition the same with regard to either endpoint). According to Newtonian mechanics, yes. But this is what SR has to say about your scenario: https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf And I suppose you know what every experiment which can discriminate between NM and SR has to say about which of the theories is in accordance with what is observed in the real world. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thomas789@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 02:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d22b939-c2d3-49e7-b762-ffb2a867546c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392023 |
On Sunday, 11 September 2016 07:27:52 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 10.09.2016 15:57, Thomas wrote: > > On Saturday, 10 September 2016 09:56:59 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > >> https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf > >> > > > > > > Your reference misses the point here. > > We are not interested at all in the clocks at the endpoints of the rod, > > nor their coordinates in the latter's frame. > > Only in the location of the endpoints in the observer's frame. > > You obviously didn't read it properly. > You can obviously consider the clocks to be at the ends > of a rod with proper length L. > The the position of the clocks (endpoints of rod) and thus > the length of the rod (distance between the clocks) in > the frame where the clocks are moving (frame K', the observer's frame) > is given in every case. > > > And the distance between those coordinates can not change by > > virtue of the observer accelerating, because both endpoints move > > by the same distance within a given time for the observer > >(as his acceleration is by definition the same with regard to either endpoint). > > According to Newtonian mechanics, yes. > > But this is what SR has to say about your scenario: > https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf > > And I suppose you know what every experiment > which can discriminate between NM and SR has > to say about which of the theories is in accordance > with what is observed in the real world. > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Your reference is about clock rates. My scenario does not care about clock rates. It just considers the length of the rod as measured in the observer's frame alone. The length and times as measured in the rod's frame are completely irrelevant here. They can be whatever they want. So again, if the length L is the length of the rod as measured in the *observer's frame* with the rod being at rest, and the observer subsequently accelerates with regard to the rod, the observer will measure then after time t the length L +1/2*a*t^2 - 1/2*a*t^2 = L so the length of the rod is measured the same as at rest. This is fundamental kinematics and must hold true independently of how you think this relates to measurements in a different reference frame. And if you are making assumptions that would require the measured length to change upon acceleration, then these assumptions must be wrong (in Einstein's case it is the assumption that the coordinates of a light signal can be transformed via a velocity dependent transformation). Essentially, what Einstein is telling the observer is to measure the positions of the rod's endpoints at different times such that he can use a velocity dependent transformation nonetheless, but obviously this is not a length measurement anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nr9iv9$fs8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #392029 |
On 11.09.2016 11:26, thomas789@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, 11 September 2016 07:27:52 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 10.09.2016 15:57, Thomas wrote: >>> On Saturday, 10 September 2016 09:56:59 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf >>>> >>> >>> >>> Your reference misses the point here. >>> We are not interested at all in the clocks at the endpoints of the rod, >>> nor their coordinates in the latter's frame. >>> Only in the location of the endpoints in the observer's frame. >> Read this again: >> You obviously didn't read it properly. >> You can obviously consider the clocks to be at the ends >> of a rod with proper length L. >> The the position of the clocks (endpoints of rod) and thus >> the length of the rod (distance between the clocks) in >> the frame where the clocks are moving (frame K', the observer's frame) >> is given in every case. >> >>> And the distance between those coordinates can not change by >>> virtue of the observer accelerating, because both endpoints move >>> by the same distance within a given time for the observer >>> (as his acceleration is by definition the same with regard to either endpoint). >> >> According to Newtonian mechanics, yes. >> >> But this is what SR has to say about your scenario: >> https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf >> >> And I suppose you know what every experiment >> which can discriminate between NM and SR has >> to say about which of the theories is in accordance >> with what is observed in the real world. >> > > Your reference is about clock rates. My scenario does not care about clock rates. > It just considers the length of the rod as measured in the observer's frame alone. > The length and times as measured in the rod's frame are completely irrelevant here. > They can be whatever they want. So again, if the length L is the length of the rod > as measured in the *observer's frame* with the rod being at rest, and the observer > subsequently accelerates with regard to the rod, the observer will measure then after time t the length So again, the length of the rod measured in the frame where the rod is moving is given in every case! > L +1/2*a*t^2 - 1/2*a*t^2 = L > > so the length of the rod is measured the same as at rest. This is fundamental kinematics and must hold true independently of how you think this relates to measurements in a different reference frame. And if you are making assumptions that would require the measured length to change upon acceleration, then these assumptions must be wrong (in Einstein's case it is the assumption that the coordinates of a light signal can be transformed via a velocity dependent transformation). Essentially, what Einstein is telling the observer is to measure the positions of the rod's endpoints at different times such that he can use a velocity dependent transformation nonetheless, but obviously this is not a length measurement anymore. > So you didn't read this? >> According to Newtonian mechanics, yes. >> >> But this is what SR has to say about your scenario: >> https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf >> >> And I suppose you know what every experiment >> which can discriminate between NM and SR has >> to say about which of the theories is in accordance >> with what is observed in the real world. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efbd118e-d13c-421f-a0c8-c095710d020d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392240 |
On Tuesday, 13 September 2016 19:10:35 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > So you didn't read this? > > >> According to Newtonian mechanics, yes. > >> > >> But this is what SR has to say about your scenario: > >> https://paulba.no/pdf/ClocksInMotion.pdf > >> > >> And I suppose you know what every experiment > >> which can discriminate between NM and SR has > >> to say about which of the theories is in accordance > >> with what is observed in the real world. > https://paulba.no/ I did read it. But you did apparently not read my earlier reply to your post (although by mistake I posted it from a different account): Your reference is about clock rates. My scenario does not care about clock rates. It just considers the length of the rod as measured in the observer's frame alone. The length and times as measured in the rod's frame are completely irrelevant here. They can be whatever they want. So again, if the length L is the length of the rod as measured in the *observer's frame* with the rod being at rest, and the observer subsequently accelerates with regard to the rod, the observer will measure then after time t the length L +1/2*a*t^2 - 1/2*a*t^2 = L so the length of the rod is measured the same as at rest. This is fundamental kinematics and must hold true independently of how you think this relates to measurements in a different reference frame. And if you are making assumptions that would require the measured length to change upon acceleration, then these assumptions must be wrong (in Einstein's case it is the assumption that the coordinates of a light signal can be transformed via a velocity dependent transformation). Essentially, what Einstein is telling the observer is to measure the positions of the rod's endpoints at different times such that he can use a velocity dependent transformation nonetheless, but obviously this is not a length measurement anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <780c79a9-4b32-46bd-8534-be956270756f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391705 |
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:23:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/7/2016 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/7/2016 8:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/7/2016 7:10 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/28/2016 12:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> SR says that there is no material contraction but then SRians uses the concept of > >>>>>>> material length contraction to explain the concept of RoS. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Books that describe SR never use the term "material length contraction". > >>>>>> Any interpretation that relativistic contraction is material is a > >>>>>> fabrication from your own mind. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is irrelevant whether any SR book mentioned material contraction. > >>>> > >>>> I disagree. When you characterize SR, you must not ADD YOUR OWN features > >>>> to SR, like "material contraction". > >>> > >>> I didn't add any features......SR does say that the ends of the rods in Henry's > >>> experiment will not be coincide materially due to RoS. > >> > >> No, it doesn't say that. It doesn't use the word "materially" at all. > >> That is "Seto's version of SR". > >> > >>> The only way this is feasible is that the moving rod is contracted materially. > >> > >> Again, that is a statement that comes ONLY from you. It is something > >> you've added. It is "Seto's version of SR" and is already known to be > >> experimentally false and internally inconsistent. But nobody cares. > >> > > > > 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? > > > ....so what is contracting and how is this non-material > > contraction is measured? > > The length is contracting, but it is not MATERIAL contraction because it > is different than what is described above. It does not involve a > physical interaction with the object and it is not a contraction that is > the same in all reference frames, so it is not a material contraction. > It is just a different kind of length contraction. It is measured by > measuring the object in flight, which is CERTAINLY possible through a > variety of methods, depending on what the object is. So you invented a new meaning for contraction and expect us to accept it without question? I don't think so. > > > Also why do you need the bogus concept of RoS. > > Why do you think it's bogus? > Nothing that experimentally verified is bogus. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nqrvsg$1mgv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391730 |
On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:23:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/7/2016 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/7/2016 8:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/7/2016 7:10 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/28/2016 12:58 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> SR says that there is no material contraction but then SRians uses the concept of >>>>>>>>> material length contraction to explain the concept of RoS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Books that describe SR never use the term "material length contraction". >>>>>>>> Any interpretation that relativistic contraction is material is a >>>>>>>> fabrication from your own mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is irrelevant whether any SR book mentioned material contraction. >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree. When you characterize SR, you must not ADD YOUR OWN features >>>>>> to SR, like "material contraction". >>>>> >>>>> I didn't add any features......SR does say that the ends of the rods in Henry's >>>>> experiment will not be coincide materially due to RoS. >>>> >>>> No, it doesn't say that. It doesn't use the word "materially" at all. >>>> That is "Seto's version of SR". >>>> >>>>> The only way this is feasible is that the moving rod is contracted materially. >>>> >>>> Again, that is a statement that comes ONLY from you. It is something >>>> you've added. It is "Seto's version of SR" and is already known to be >>>> experimentally false and internally inconsistent. But nobody cares. >>>> >>> >>> 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. > >> >>> ....so what is contracting and how is this non-material >>> contraction is measured? >> >> The length is contracting, but it is not MATERIAL contraction because it >> is different than what is described above. It does not involve a >> physical interaction with the object and it is not a contraction that is >> the same in all reference frames, so it is not a material contraction. >> It is just a different kind of length contraction. It is measured by >> measuring the object in flight, which is CERTAINLY possible through a >> variety of methods, depending on what the object is. > > So you invented a new meaning for contraction and expect us to accept it > without question? I don't think so. I didn't invent anything. This nonmaterial contraction was discovered around 1900, decades before you were born. Since that nonmaterial contraction was established long before you were born, there's no reason for you to question it. Do you question Neptune? It was discovered before you were born. Do you question neutrinos? > >> >>> Also why do you need the bogus concept of RoS. >> >> Why do you think it's bogus? >> Nothing that experimentally verified is bogus. >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-09-09 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <119f5263-d2cb-4eaa-893d-e09b98bee041@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391773 |
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/7/2016 4:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:23:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/7/2016 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/7/2016 8:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/7/2016 7:10 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/28/2016 12:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> SR says that there is no material contraction but then SRians uses the concept of > >>>>>>>>> material length contraction to explain the concept of RoS. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Books that describe SR never use the term "material length contraction". > >>>>>>>> Any interpretation that relativistic contraction is material is a > >>>>>>>> fabrication from your own mind. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is irrelevant whether any SR book mentioned material contraction. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I disagree. When you characterize SR, you must not ADD YOUR OWN features > >>>>>> to SR, like "material contraction". > >>>>> > >>>>> I didn't add any features......SR does say that the ends of the rods in Henry's > >>>>> experiment will not be coincide materially due to RoS. > >>>> > >>>> No, it doesn't say that. It doesn't use the word "materially" at all. > >>>> That is "Seto's version of SR". > >>>> > >>>>> The only way this is feasible is that the moving rod is contracted materially. > >>>> > >>>> Again, that is a statement that comes ONLY from you. It is something > >>>> you've added. It is "Seto's version of SR" and is already known to be > >>>> experimentally false and internally inconsistent. But nobody cares. > >>>> > >>> > >>> 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. So if I look at you from a distance to be shorter than 6 ft are you really shorter than 6 ft? Also Tom Roberts said that length contraction is a geometric projection effect and projection effect is an apparent effect.....are you disagreeing with Tom? > > > > >> > >>> ....so what is contracting and how is this non-material > >>> contraction is measured? > >> > >> The length is contracting, but it is not MATERIAL contraction because it > >> is different than what is described above. It does not involve a > >> physical interaction with the object and it is not a contraction that is > >> the same in all reference frames, so it is not a material contraction. > >> It is just a different kind of length contraction. It is measured by > >> measuring the object in flight, which is CERTAINLY possible through a > >> variety of methods, depending on what the object is. > > > > So you invented a new meaning for contraction and expect us to accept it > > without question? I don't think so. > > I didn't invent anything. This nonmaterial contraction was discovered > around 1900, decades before you were born. Since that nonmaterial > contraction was established long before you were born, there's no reason > for you to question it. Do you question Neptune? It was discovered > before you were born. Do you question neutrinos? > > > > >> > >>> Also why do you need the bogus concept of RoS. > >> > >> Why do you think it's bogus? > >> Nothing that experimentally verified is bogus. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 29 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web