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 12 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 34 Next page →
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 00:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cee5ed7f-1d3b-4868-8685-7d6715147e8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393151 |
On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 22:06:58 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas > > And if the acceleration starts at T=0, you'll have v>0 and and x>0 for T>0. > > We're talking about T=0 with a>0. Since v=at, v=0. Since x=(1/2)*at^2, x=0, > all because t=0. YOU are talking about T=0 with a>0, but it doesn't make any sense to integrate any function over a zero interval. I was talking about T>0 with a>0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 13:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nru2g7$5lc$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #393184 |
Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> writes: >YOU are talking about T=0 with a>0, but it doesn't >make any sense to integrate any function over a zero interval. >I was talking about T>0 with a>0. I talked about T=0 because that is the only time both sets of marks align with each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d7e2063-1b8a-42db-b085-d4054b6da2b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393221 |
On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 13:39:24 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas writes: > > >YOU are talking about T=0 with a>0, but it doesn't > >make any sense to integrate any function over a zero interval. > >I was talking about T>0 with a>0. > > I talked about T=0 because that is the only time both sets of > marks align with each other. Good, then we agree about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 20:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u_6dnRgUyIb3QXzKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393140 |
On 9/20/16 9/20/16 3:52 PM, Thomas wrote: > On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 20:25:18 UTC, tjrob137 wrote: >> T=0+ is standard mathematical notation for the limit of T as T approaches 0 >> from above; T=0- is the same but approaching from below (in books, the + >> and - are superscripts). Apply those limits to the physical situation, and >> you get Michael's description above. > > It doesn't apply to the physical situation. Time only goes in one direction. You need to learn what science actually is. We are modeling the world with mathematics. In mathematics both limits make perfectly good sense. Moreover, as omniscient analysts we are not part of the world being modeled at all, and we can look at it however we wish. This OUGHT to be obvious -- you are NOT in that rocket or sitting on the rod.... > And if the acceleration starts at T=0, you'll have v>0 and and x>0 for T>0. But right at T=0 that does not apply, and that is what is being discussed: T=0 when looked at from immediately before or after. And by "immediately" I mean infinitesimally so that no actual movement has occurred for T=0+ (for T=0- there's no issue, except your ignorance of what physics is). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 00:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9440ec51-c698-4208-84b1-00f9197f7438@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393161 |
W dniu środa, 21 września 2016 03:03:45 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > We are modeling the world with mathematics. In mathematics both limits make > perfectly good sense. You're not modelling the world. You're modelling your imagination. And talking about mathematics - you rejected its oldest and very important part. So now, when asked "what do you mean by a cubic meter" you can only pretend you don't see the question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrsbgi$mbo$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #393137 |
Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> writes: >On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 19:54:44 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> I already answered this in what you snipped. At T=0+, the acceleration >> >> becomes nonzero but v and x are still 0. The marks do align because v >> >> is still 0, but as soon as the rod starts moving neither mark aligns. >> >> >You are using a peculiar notation here with T=0+. >> >> It's actually rather standard. It means at T=0, but the rockets have fired >> but nothing has moved or accelerated yet (since T=0). >> If I stated T=0-, it would mean at T=0 but the rockets haven't fired. This >> is done because there is an abrupt change at T=0. >Sorry, but that's nonsense. I don't know where you picked this up. T=0 is > T=0 and T>0 is T>0. There is nothing in between. You need to review your math, the chapter on limits. As Tom Roberts states, that is standard limit notation (at least when using superscripts) when there is a discontinuity. The discontinuity is the acceleration going from 0 to some nonzero value at T=0. >> > If you mean by that T>0 No, I meant T=0 with the conditions of the positive side. That's why I wrote T=0+. The condition of the positive side is a>0. The condition of the negative side is a=0. >> > then clearly v>0 and x>0 as well if the acceleration started at T=0. No, at T=0+, a>0 but v=0 and x=0. v = at but since t=0, v=0. x = 1/2 a*t^2 but again t=0, so x=0. You probably were never exposed to limits in math so you probably won't understand this and will probably reply with some incorrect objection. >> If x>0 then the marks will not align. Period. End of problem. It is not >> interesting since it doesn't demonstrate anything useful for or against >> length contraction. >You shouldn't just end the discussion when it gets interesting, which it >will get here if you would bother to answer my question: >Now can we also agree that both observers will see the respective endpoint >(the one they were originally co-located with) having moved away by the same >distance, provided they applied the same acceleration and check the distance >at the same time T (according to their identical and synchronized clocks)? Yes, but only in that one frame. In any other frame, no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 00:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cec0ae9-14d8-43de-bf78-96b43f874d89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393150 |
On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 22:00:55 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas > >Now can we also agree that both observers will see the respective endpoint > >(the one they were originally co-located with) having moved away by the same > >distance, provided they applied the same acceleration and check the distance > >at the same time T (according to their identical and synchronized clocks)? > > Yes, but only in that one frame. In any other frame, no. We are only interested in that one frame (the frame of the marker objects). So if you agree that the observers on both marker objects will have seen the respective endpoint of the rod having receded by the same distance after time T>0, what does that tell you about the distance between the endpoints in that frame? Originally (at T=0) it was L, and with both rod endpoints having moved the same distance in the markers frame, and with the markers still being the same distance L apart (having accelerated by the same amount for the same time) it must still be L!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nru3co$5lc$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #393185 |
Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> writes: >On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 22:00:55 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Thomas >> >Now can we also agree that both observers will see the respective endpoint >> >(the one they were originally co-located with) having moved away by the same >> >distance, provided they applied the same acceleration and check the distance >> >at the same time T (according to their identical and synchronized clocks)? >> >> Yes, but only in that one frame. In any other frame, no. >We are only interested in that one frame (the frame of the marker objects). >So if you agree that the observers on both marker objects will have seen >the respective endpoint of the rod having receded by the same distance after >time T>0, what does that tell you about the distance between the endpoints >in that frame? While accelerating, the frame is not inertial so the standard length contraction math doesn't apply. If we assume that at aome point T=Z the rockets turn off, the rod frame becomes inertial again and we can take a look. However, there is the issue of turning both rockets off at the same time at T=Z (Which frame?). But regardless, assuming we resolve "at the same time", the rod with the no longer firing rockets is inertial IN ANOTHER FRAME. Someone who "went along for the ride" with the rod will see the rod at the same length, but someone who "stayed behind" in the original rest frame will see the rod moving with the speed aZ (at position 1/2 aZ^2 when T=Z+), and thus length contracted. (I used the notation you objected to to indicate the conditions at T=Z are the conditions of the greater side, that is, rockets no longer firing) > Originally (at T=0) it was L, and with both rod endpoints >having moved the same distance in the markers frame, and with the markers >still being the same distance L apart (having accelerated by the same amount >for the same time) it must still be L! In the frame of the moving rod, yes. Other frames, not necessarily.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01b0b2f4-96a6-498c-b370-448c88de813e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393222 |
On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 13:54:37 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas writes: > > >On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 22:00:55 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Thomas > > >> >Now can we also agree that both observers will see the respective endpoint > >> >(the one they were originally co-located with) having moved away by the same > >> >distance, provided they applied the same acceleration and check the distance > >> >at the same time T (according to their identical and synchronized clocks)? > >> > >> Yes, but only in that one frame. In any other frame, no. > > >We are only interested in that one frame (the frame of the marker objects). > >So if you agree that the observers on both marker objects will have seen > >the respective endpoint of the rod having receded by the same distance after > >time T>0, what does that tell you about the distance between the endpoints > >in that frame? > > While accelerating, the frame is not inertial so the standard length > contraction math doesn't apply. We don't need to know the exact math, only the facts that in the reference frame of the two accelerating marker objects the respective endpoints of the rod have moved away by the same distance after any time T>0, and that the distance of the two marker objects stays the same in their rest frame. From that you can conclude that the endpoints of the rod still have the same distance L in the reference frame of the accelerated marker objects that they had initially before the acceleration started.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ns0uao$r6$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #393254 |
Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> writes: >We don't need to know the exact math, only the facts that in the reference >frame of the two accelerating marker objects the respective endpoints of the >rod have moved away by the same distance after any time T>0, and that the >distance of the two marker objects stays the same in their rest frame. Not a valid assumption, since an accelerating frame is not inertial. SR only applies to inertial frames. >From that you can conclude that the endpoints of the rod still have the same >distance L in the reference frame of the accelerated marker objects that >they had initially before the acceleration started. False assumptions lead to false conclusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrre1m$144k$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393058 |
On 9/20/2016 1:58 AM, Thomas wrote: > On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 03:07:06 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Thomas writes: >> >>>> If the ruler was moving wrt the rod, there would be one time when the >>>> x1 point of the ruler aligns with one end of the rod, and another time >>>> when the x2 point of the ruler aligns with the other end of the rod. >>>> The two times would *not* be the same. >> >>> The two times are the same by DEFINITION. Instead of a ruler, just put a >>> marker object at each endpoint. Both marker objects have synchronized >>> clocks. By agreement, at time t=0 both marker objects start accelerating >>> by the same amount 'a' by firing a rocket. >> >> One rocket? If so, one end will start accelerating before the other end >> does. It will take L/c seconds (or more) before the other end starts to >> accelerate. > > Did you not read what I wrote? Both marker objects (assumed point-like) fire > their rocket as agreed at t=0. So obviously there are two rockets, as well as > two (synchronized) clocks. Remember that a pair of clocks can only be synchronized in one inertial frame, and that the same pair of clocks will NOT be synchronized in any other frame. > > Now I ask you again : You maintain then that at some time t>0 one of the marker > objects would still be co-located with an endpoint (considering that acceleration > means change of velocity, and velocity means change of position)? > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 06:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70dedead-6e52-4e90-a3d4-1528378b8117@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393094 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 września 2016 15:36:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Remember that a pair of clocks can only be synchronized in one inertial > frame, and that the same pair of clocks will NOT be synchronized in any > other frame. And remember that no heavier-than-air machine can ever fly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 10:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <841503d5-dbff-4c93-8adc-7c2f604f2770@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393094 |
On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 13:36:57 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/20/2016 1:58 AM, Thomas wrote: > > On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 03:07:06 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Thomas writes: > >> > >>>> If the ruler was moving wrt the rod, there would be one time when the > >>>> x1 point of the ruler aligns with one end of the rod, and another time > >>>> when the x2 point of the ruler aligns with the other end of the rod. > >>>> The two times would *not* be the same. > >> > >>> The two times are the same by DEFINITION. Instead of a ruler, just put a > >>> marker object at each endpoint. Both marker objects have synchronized > >>> clocks. By agreement, at time t=0 both marker objects start accelerating > >>> by the same amount 'a' by firing a rocket. > >> > >> One rocket? If so, one end will start accelerating before the other end > >> does. It will take L/c seconds (or more) before the other end starts to > >> accelerate. > > > > Did you not read what I wrote? Both marker objects (assumed point-like) fire > > their rocket as agreed at t=0. So obviously there are two rockets, as well as > > two (synchronized) clocks. > Remember that a pair of clocks can only be synchronized in one inertial > frame, and that the same pair of clocks will NOT be synchronized in any > other frame. The clocks are synchronized in the reference frame of the rockets, which is the frame where the length measurement is performed. Other reference frames are irrelevant here. Each rocket will fire its engine at t=0 (when they are still at rest and co-located with the endpoints of the rod). Now you want to tell me that an observer in one of the rockets will still see himself co-located with an endpoint when he looks out of the window at some time t>0 (according to his own clock)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 07:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrtv61$v1f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393121 |
On 9/20/2016 12:37 PM, Thomas wrote: > On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 13:36:57 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/20/2016 1:58 AM, Thomas wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 03:07:06 UTC, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Thomas writes: >>>> >>>>>> If the ruler was moving wrt the rod, there would be one time when the >>>>>> x1 point of the ruler aligns with one end of the rod, and another time >>>>>> when the x2 point of the ruler aligns with the other end of the rod. >>>>>> The two times would *not* be the same. >>>> >>>>> The two times are the same by DEFINITION. Instead of a ruler, just put a >>>>> marker object at each endpoint. Both marker objects have synchronized >>>>> clocks. By agreement, at time t=0 both marker objects start accelerating >>>>> by the same amount 'a' by firing a rocket. >>>> >>>> One rocket? If so, one end will start accelerating before the other end >>>> does. It will take L/c seconds (or more) before the other end starts to >>>> accelerate. >>> >>> Did you not read what I wrote? Both marker objects (assumed point-like) fire >>> their rocket as agreed at t=0. So obviously there are two rockets, as well as >>> two (synchronized) clocks. > > >> Remember that a pair of clocks can only be synchronized in one inertial >> frame, and that the same pair of clocks will NOT be synchronized in any >> other frame. > > The clocks are synchronized in the reference frame of the rockets, which is the > frame where the length measurement is performed. Other reference frames are > irrelevant here. The rockets are accelerating. A synch procedure that synchs the clocks at the start of the acceleration will NOT ensure that the clocks remain in synch during the acceleration, and in fact repeating the synch procedure after the rockets have accelerated a while will demonstrate that the clocks are no longer synchronized. > Each rocket will fire its engine at t=0 (when they are still at rest and > co-located with the endpoints of the rod). Now you want to tell me that an > observer in one of the rockets will still see himself co-located with an > endpoint when he looks out of the window at some time t>0 (according to > his own clock)? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0da7ea0b-99f4-49ed-9a89-8856fd82b4d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393203 |
On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 12:41:40 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > The rockets are accelerating. A synch procedure that synchs the clocks > at the start of the acceleration will NOT ensure that the clocks remain > in synch during the acceleration, and in fact repeating the synch > procedure after the rockets have accelerated a while will demonstrate > that the clocks are no longer synchronized. Both rockets start accelerating at the same time (according to their synchronized clocks) with the same acceleration in the same direction. So both rockets will at any time be at rest relatively to each other i.e. keeping the initial distance. This also implies that the clocks will always be synchronized in the momentary rest frame of the rockets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <I6CdnYHNLqUUa3_KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393251 |
On 9/21/16 9/21/16 - 3:29 PM, Thomas wrote: > Both rockets start accelerating at the same time (according to their > synchronized clocks) with the same acceleration in the same direction. OK. By "same acceleration" let us mean equal proper acceleration (the acceleration measured in their respective instantaneously co-moving inertial frames) [#]. This is equivalent to their having identical engines with equal thrust that turn on and off at equal elapsed proper times from launch. [#] Your use of "acceleration" is AMBIGUOUS, which you don't seem to realize, even after I have pointed it out before. > So > both rockets will at any time be at rest relatively to each other i.e. > keeping the initial distance. That is NOT what we normally mean by "at rest relative to each other". That phrase normally means that they are at rest in a single inertial frame, simultaneously in that frame (even if this is only transiently true for any given such frame, as for accelerating objects). And your claim is NOT true: with my clarification about what "same acceleration means", they will "keep the initial distance" ONLY in the inertial frame from which they started. In particular, if they both turn off their engines at the same elapsed proper time after launch, then they will both be at rest in an inertial frame, but will be FURTHER APART than they were when they started -- in that sense they do NOT "keep the initial distance"; moreover, their onboard clocks will NOT be synchronized with either that frame's time coordinate or with each other. > This also implies that the clocks will always > be synchronized in the momentary rest frame of the rockets. This is just plain wrong -- there _IS_ no "momentary rest frame of the rockets" when their engines are on [$]. And after they turn them off as in my previous paragraph, their clocks will NOT be synchronized in their final inertial frame, with either that frame's time coordinate or with each other; they don't arrive at rest in that frame simultaneously, either. [$] At a given elapsed proper time since launch there is an inertial frame in which the two rockets are at rest. But they are not SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in that frame, and neither rocket's on-board clock is synchronized with its time coordinate (or with each other, as seen by that frame). You repeatedly make GUESSES about this, and your GUESSES are WRONG. The ONLY way to get the right answer here is to COMPUTE it, using SR. Stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and go STUDY. You will never learn anything by GUESSING. Look up "Bell's spaceship paradox". It discusses two identical spaceships connected by a thread. When they launch with identical profiles of proper acceleration, the thread breaks, because the distance between the ships is increasing. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f420dc44-acda-4f21-8936-aeb8cd794303@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393257 |
On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 21:07:28 UTC, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/21/16 9/21/16 - 3:29 PM, Thomas wrote: > > Both rockets start accelerating at the same time (according to their > > synchronized clocks) with the same acceleration in the same direction. > > OK. By "same acceleration" let us mean equal proper acceleration (the > acceleration measured in their respective instantaneously co-moving inertial > frames) [#]. This is equivalent to their having identical engines with equal > thrust that turn on and off at equal elapsed proper times from launch. > > [#] Your use of "acceleration" is AMBIGUOUS, which you don't > seem to realize, even after I have pointed it out before. It is only ambiguous to you, as you seem to need to different concepts of acceleration in order to resolve your paradoxical viewpoint. It is very clear what acceleration means, namely, by definition, a change of velocity with regard to some inertial reference frame. > they will "keep the initial distance" ONLY in the inertial frame from > which they started. In particular, if they both turn off their engines at the > same elapsed proper time after launch, then they will both be at rest in an > inertial frame, but will be FURTHER APART than they were when they started -- That would mean the two accelerations would have been different or started at different times, both in contradiction to the definitions. Assume just for the sake of the argument both rockets start at the same place. Would you still claim they end up a distance apart after applying the same acceleration for the same time? > Look up "Bell's spaceship paradox". It discusses two > identical spaceships connected by a thread. When they > launch with identical profiles of proper acceleration, > the thread breaks, because the distance between the > ships is increasing. You shouldn't make your case with a paradox. Next you'll ask me to look up Zeno's paradox in order to convince me that I'll never be able to hit a target with an arrow (and I could tell you the error in that one as well).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 17:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <854eef67-e6b9-4ce8-9a52-d68ad65f0d11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393267 |
El miércoles, 21 de septiembre de 2016, 19:17:37 (UTC-3), Thomas escribió: > On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 21:07:28 UTC, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 9/21/16 9/21/16 - 3:29 PM, Thomas wrote: > > > Both rockets start accelerating at the same time (according to their > > > synchronized clocks) with the same acceleration in the same direction. > > > > OK. By "same acceleration" let us mean equal proper acceleration (the > > acceleration measured in their respective instantaneously co-moving inertial > > frames) [#]. This is equivalent to their having identical engines with equal > > thrust that turn on and off at equal elapsed proper times from launch. > > > > [#] Your use of "acceleration" is AMBIGUOUS, which you don't > > seem to realize, even after I have pointed it out before. > > It is only ambiguous to you, as you seem to need to different concepts of acceleration in order to resolve your paradoxical viewpoint. > > It is very clear what acceleration means, namely, by definition, a change of velocity with regard to some inertial reference frame. > > > > they will "keep the initial distance" ONLY in the inertial frame from > > which they started. In particular, if they both turn off their engines at the > > same elapsed proper time after launch, then they will both be at rest in an > > inertial frame, but will be FURTHER APART than they were when they started -- > > That would mean the two accelerations would have been different or started at different times, both in contradiction to the definitions. > > Assume just for the sake of the argument both rockets start at the same place. Would you still claim they end up a distance apart after applying the same acceleration for the same time? > > > > Look up "Bell's spaceship paradox". It discusses two > > identical spaceships connected by a thread. When they > > launch with identical profiles of proper acceleration, > > the thread breaks, because the distance between the > > ships is increasing. > > You shouldn't make your case with a paradox. Next you'll ask me to look up Zeno's paradox in order to convince me that I'll never be able to hit a target with an arrow (and I could tell you the error in that one as well). What part of you being wrong you do not undertand? Your example is just another version of the Bell spaceship problem, which was proposed and solved about 60 years ago. "Bell's spaceship paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity. It was first designed by E. Dewan and M. Beran in 1959 and became more widely known when J. S. Bell included a modified version. A delicate string or thread hangs between two spaceships. Both spaceships now start accelerating simultaneously and equally as measured in the inertial frame S, thus having the same velocity at all times in S. Therefore, they are all subject to the same Lorentz contraction, so the entire assembly seems to be equally contracted in the S frame with respect to the length at the start. Therefore, at first sight, it might appear that the thread will not break during acceleration." This is what you are asserting and it is wrong! "This argument, however, is incorrect as shown by Dewan & Beran and Bell. The distance between the spaceships does not undergo Lorentz contraction with respect to the distance at the start, because in S, it is effectively defined to remain the same, due to the equal and simultaneous acceleration of both spaceships in S. It also turns out that the rest length between the two has increased in the frames in which they are momentarily at rest (S′), because the accelerations of the spaceships are not simultaneous here due to relativity of simultaneity. The thread, on the other hand, being a physical object held together by electrostatic forces, maintains the same rest length. Thus, in frame S, it must be Lorentz contracted, which result can also be derived when the electromagnetic fields of bodies in motion are considered. So, calculations made in both frames show that the thread will break; in S′ due to the non-simultaneous acceleration and the increasing distance between the spaceships, and in S due to length contraction of the thread." As Tom says, you need to study before writing nonsense around here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4d2ba54-8437-4d2c-aafe-45e676166542@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393276 |
On Wednesday, paparios wrote: >>>> Both rockets start accelerating at the same time (according to their >>>> synchronized clocks) with the same acceleration in the same direction. > >>> By "same acceleration" let us mean equal proper acceleration (the >>> acceleration measured in their respective instantaneously co-moving >>> inertial frames) >>> they will "keep the initial distance" ONLY in the inertial frame from >>> which they started. In particular, if they both turn off their engines >>> at the same elapsed proper time after launch, then they will both >>> be at rest in an inertial frame, but will be FURTHER APART than they >>> were when they started > >> Assume just for the sake of the argument both rockets start at the >> same place. Would you still claim they end up a distance apart after >> applying the same acceleration for the same time? > >>> Look up "Bell's spaceship paradox". It discusses two >>> identical spaceships connected by a thread. When they >>> launch with identical profiles of proper acceleration, >>> the thread breaks, because the distance between the >>> ships is increasing. > > "Bell's spaceship paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity. > A delicate string or thread hangs between two spaceships. Both spaceships > now start accelerating simultaneously and equally as measured in the > inertial frame S, thus having the same velocity at all times in S. > Therefore, they are all subject to the same Lorentz contraction, so the > entire assembly seems to be equally contracted in the S frame with > respect to the length at the start. Therefore, at first sight, it might > appear that the thread will not break during acceleration." > This is what you are asserting and it is wrong! > "This argument, however, is incorrect. > The distance between the spaceships does not undergo Lorentz > contraction with respect to the distance at the start, because in S, > it is effectively defined to remain the same, due to the equal and > simultaneous acceleration of both spaceships in S. It also turns out > that the rest length between the two has increased in the frames in > which they are momentarily at rest (S′), because the accelerations of > the spaceships are not simultaneous here due to relativity of > simultaneity. The thread, on the other hand, being a physical object > held together by electrostatic forces, maintains the same rest length. > Thus, in frame S, it must be Lorentz contracted, which result can also > be derived when the electromagnetic fields of bodies in motion are > considered. So, calculations made in both frames show that the thread > will break; in S′ due to the non-simultaneous acceleration and the > increasing distance between the spaceships, and in S due to length > contraction of the thread." Place an iron donut in an oven. It expands. Does the hole grow or shrink? I wonder if there's a way to combine these two into a single problem - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 18:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ab8e658-074c-419a-ace9-fab54a024ae4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393278 |
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 5:53:27 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > Place an iron donut in an oven. It expands. Does the hole > grow or shrink? Everything expands, including the hole... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thexp2.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web