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 14 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 34 Next page →
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 04:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb6a6cb1-5919-4b51-b7c2-be918002531f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393299 |
On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 4:17:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas wrote: > On Thursday, 22 September 2016 00:39:49 UTC, paparios wrote: > 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. > > This is not the situation we are discussing here. I said clearly and repeatedly that the accelerations are assumed by definition/design to be simultaneous in the rockets' frame. > > You shouldn't just quote something you have heard or read about before making sure it is applicable here. You clearly do not understand your own example. In the T=0 frame The length of the rod is L. When the rod is accelerated in that T=0 frame it is true that the tip and the end of the rod follow the same path. However as the rod is now in motion in the "instantaneous" frame T=T', the rod will be Lorentz contracted and so its length is not longer L.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e30b3233-be7c-4352-9fc6-a4cae8685eec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393317 |
On Thursday, 22 September 2016 11:24:13 UTC, paparios wrote: > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 4:17:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, 22 September 2016 00:39:49 UTC, paparios wrote: > > 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. > > > > This is not the situation we are discussing here. I said clearly and repeatedly that the accelerations are assumed by definition/design to be simultaneous in the rockets' frame. > > > > You shouldn't just quote something you have heard or read about before making sure it is applicable here. > > You clearly do not understand your own example. In the T=0 frame The length of the rod is L. When the rod is accelerated in that T=0 frame it is true that the tip and the end of the rod follow the same path. However as the rod is now in motion in the "instantaneous" frame T=T', the rod will be Lorentz contracted and so its length is not longer L. I understand it, but you seem to have problems: the rod isn't accelerated, the rockets are, and both rockets accelerate simultaneously in their frame(s). The observers on both rockets could initially see the endpoints of the rod (with length L) co-located with them before they started accelerating, and after they started accelerating they see the rod's respective endpoint receding from them, each by the same amount due to the identical acceleration. Because of the identical and simultaneous acceleration in the rockets' frame, they can also conclude that their relative distance still is the same (L), which means the relative distance of the rod's endpoints is also still L.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 19:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns15is$8ev$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #393356 |
Użytkownik "Thomas" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:e30b3233-be7c-4352-9fc6-a4cae8685eec@googlegroups.com... |I understand it, but you seem to have problems: the rod isn't accelerated, the rockets are, and both rockets accelerate simultaneously in their frame(s). As I've told you - according to The Shit there is no such thing. Such scenario is impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20f7a8a0-2c0a-41c4-a321-031090617514@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393356 |
On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 2:29:51 PM UTC-3, Thomas wrote: > On Thursday, 22 September 2016 11:24:13 UTC, paparios wrote: > > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 4:17:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas wrote: > > > On Thursday, 22 September 2016 00:39:49 UTC, paparios wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > This is not the situation we are discussing here. I said clearly and repeatedly that the accelerations are assumed by definition/design to be simultaneous in the rockets' frame. > > > > > > You shouldn't just quote something you have heard or read about before making sure it is applicable here. > > > > You clearly do not understand your own example. In the T=0 frame The length of the rod is L. When the rod is accelerated in that T=0 frame it is true that the tip and the end of the rod follow the same path. However as the rod is now in motion in the "instantaneous" frame T=T', the rod will be Lorentz contracted and so its length is not longer L. > > I understand it, but you seem to have problems: the rod isn't accelerated, the rockets are, and both rockets accelerate simultaneously in their frame(s). The observers on both rockets could initially see the endpoints of the rod (with length L) co-located with them before they started accelerating, and after they started accelerating they see the rod's respective endpoint receding from them, each by the same amount due to the identical acceleration. Because of the identical and simultaneous acceleration in the rockets' frame, they can also conclude that their relative distance still is the same (L), which means the relative distance of the rod's endpoints is also still L. So you are implying the observers are inside the rockets and the rod remains in the original frame (ie the ground). Fact is, as you say the rod is receding from the rockets (the same as if the rockets were at rest and the rod was doing the motion). So from the point of view of the rockets observers, the rod is Lorentz contracted and so is not longer L.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 23:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ff5ae2f-0d76-486e-82ea-bcc5dbcde8e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393365 |
W dniu czwartek, 22 września 2016 20:17:12 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał: > So you are implying the observers are inside the rockets and the rod remains in the original frame (ie the ground). Fact is, as you say the rod is receding from the rockets (the same as if the rockets were at rest and the rod was doing the motion). So from the point of view of the rockets observers, the rod is Lorentz contracted and so is not longer L. And from the point of view of an observer on a street, buildings and trees are running around him. Relativistic moron imagined! Must be the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf68fd29-e1ec-4d32-9ad4-061d987dad2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393276 |
On September 21, paparios wrote: > "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. > 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 increasing distance between the > spaceships, and in S due to length contraction of the thread." This is a poor explanation, which exemplifies my distrust of Wikipedia. Lorenz contraction can't explain the thread break, because that's a geometrical phenomenon, an APPARENT contraction, as seen by Sam. LOOKING at a thing can't affect it! Furthermore, contraction would be a compressive force, but the thread actually breaks through strain. Everyone has missed the real point here, focusing on simultaneity and whatever. Even the string is a distraction. Length contraction involves SPACE, not objects! Is relativity a theory of material science, of tensile strength? Drop the string, picture the system as an arrow, with the shaft removed; no shaft necessary! The separation - EMPTY SPACE, not a THING - should decrease, according to SR, if the arrow accelerates. Yet Sam, a student of relativity, sees it constant, even though the arrow's speed increases, and is baffled. The arrow appears to be a constant length, yet is actually stretching! The paradox is remarkable, because it so intensely confounds our common sense. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 13:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6uydnbVLKbTClHHKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394139 |
On 9/28/16 9/28/16 - 12:45 PM, RichD wrote: > Lorenz contraction can't explain the thread break, > because that's a geometrical phenomenon, an APPARENT > contraction, as seen by Sam. LOOKING at a thing can't > affect it! You are confused. "Length contraction" is NOT an "apparent" contraction, even though it is indeed a geometrical projection. It can (but need not) involve more than just "LOOKING". If you try to carry a ladder through a narrow doorway, what matters is the geometrical projection of the ladder's length onto the doorway's width. This purely geometrical relation CLEARLY has physical consequences (and is not just "looking"). For Bell's paradox with a string between rockets that start in an inertial frame, follow identical proper acceleration profiles, and then come to rest in a second inertial frame, the thread must break. And the reason is the same as "length contraction". In this case, bringing the thread to rest in the second inertial frame requires applying a geometrical projection onto the spatial coordinates of the second frame, and the two rockets are further apart than they were when at rest in the first frame. Again, a purely geometrical effect has physical consequences. > Furthermore, contraction would be a compressive force, > but the thread actually breaks through strain. You confused yourself by taking the NAME literally. That's why I always put "length contraction" in scare quotes -- it is a very poor name for the actual phenomenon. (Ditto for "time dilation".) In this case, the distance between the two rockets in the SECOND frame is "length contracted" when measured in the FIRST frame. > [...] There are too many different scenarios in this thread already, and nobody knows what anybody else is trying to discuss, unless a complete description is included (as above). So I won't attempt to discuss yet another new scenario except to say that you are still confused. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 14:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsi6qt$1vck$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394142 |
On 29/09/16 04:18, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/28/16 9/28/16 - 12:45 PM, RichD wrote: >> Lorenz contraction can't explain the thread break, >> because that's a geometrical phenomenon, an APPARENT >> contraction, as seen by Sam. LOOKING at a thing can't >> affect it! > > You are confused. "Length contraction" is NOT an "apparent" contraction, > even though it is indeed a geometrical projection. It can (but need not) > involve more than just "LOOKING". > > If you try to carry a ladder through a narrow doorway, what matters is > the geometrical projection of the ladder's length onto the doorway's > width. This purely geometrical relation CLEARLY has physical > consequences (and is not just "looking"). Time is not a fourth spatial dimension. It is totally unrelated. > For Bell's paradox with a string between rockets that start in an > inertial frame, follow identical proper acceleration profiles, and then > come to rest in a second inertial frame, the thread must break. And the > reason is the same as "length contraction". In this case, bringing the > thread to rest in the second inertial frame requires applying a > geometrical projection onto the spatial coordinates of the second frame, > and the two rockets are further apart than they were when at rest in the > first frame. Again, a purely geometrical effect has physical consequences. Big words, little meaning...... >> Furthermore, contraction would be a compressive force, >> but the thread actually breaks through strain. > > You confused yourself by taking the NAME literally. That's why I always > put "length contraction" in scare quotes -- it is a very poor name for > the actual phenomenon. (Ditto for "time dilation".) > > In this case, the distance between the two rockets in the > SECOND frame is "length contracted" when measured in the > FIRST frame. > > >> [...] > > There are too many different scenarios in this thread already, and > nobody knows what anybody else is trying to discuss, unless a complete > description is included (as above). So I won't attempt to discuss yet > another new scenario except to say that you are still confused. Maybe he's just not gullible enough to allow himself to be indoctrinated with fairytale physics. > > Tom Roberts > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 05:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b28f75be-ef8e-4d92-9888-4a6e395ed729@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394213 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:54:57 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > Time is not a fourth spatial dimension. It is totally unrelated. x' = x - v*t Yeah, right :-)))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 09:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsk876$18cu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394247 |
On 29/09/16 22:23, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:54:57 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> Time is not a fourth spatial dimension. It is totally unrelated. > > x' = x - v*t > > Yeah, right :-))) You're dumber than Bodkin. vt is a distance, fool. Tx(L/T) = L --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 19:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efa711de-c2e6-4fba-b7f0-5932cb2ba252@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394301 |
On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:30:50 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 29/09/16 22:23, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:54:57 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > Time is not a fourth spatial dimension. It is totally unrelated. > > > > x' = x - v*t > > > > Yeah, right :-))) > > You're dumber than Bodkin. > vt is a distance, fool. Tx(L/T) = L You're really good at saying what is trivial and ignoring where you stuck your foot firmly in your mouth. The record is clear. You said that time and space are TOTALLY unrelated. I demonstrated using your refuted Galilean transform that they ARE related. You lose again, you stupid, dishonest fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 05:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsmef6$gh3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394323 |
On 30/09/16 12:44, Gary Harnagel wrote: ...."I admit that I know nothing about physics"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c55c0af9-d63f-47c7-bd76-858f5488832e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394426 |
On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 1:29:46 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > "I am a lying piece of shit." 'Nuff said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9218b9c-2766-4379-886a-10e1d3844ffc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394142 |
On September 28, tjrob137 wrote: >> Lorenz contraction can't explain the thread break, >> because that's a geometrical phenomenon, an APPARENT >> contraction, as seen by Sam. LOOKING at a thing can't >> affect it! > > You are confused. "Length contraction" is NOT an "apparent" > contraction, even though it is indeed a geometrical projection. > It can (but need not) involve more than just "LOOKING". You are confused, along with your reading incomprehension. I quoted the WIkipedia article, which claims that length contraction, as seen from Sam's stationary frame, explains the break. What nonsense. "length contraction" (scary quotes, hey?) describes what is OBSERVED, it isn't real. > If you try to carry a ladder through a narrow doorway, what > matters is the geometrical projection of the ladder's length > onto the doorway's width. This purely geometrical relation > CLEARLY has physical consequences (and is not just "looking"). You're saying that Sam, WATCHING the ladder, or the spaceships, causes the ladder (string) to break??? The projections are merely mathematical constructions, to explain the physical phenomena PASSIVELY SEEN by Sam. But it's the REAL PHYSICAL ACTION of carrying the ladder through the doorway, and Al flying away from Bob, which results in disaster! If Sam scoots around on his Ducati, getting various views of the ladder, or the spaceships, you believe those PROJECTIONS onto his frame will affect anything??? LOOKING cannot crash the ladder, or break the string! PS A better analogy would be the ladder and door frame spinning (this is gedanken, OK?), then accelerating, with an observer Sam, the ladder crashes, etc. > For Bell's paradox with a string between rockets that start > in an inertial frame, follow identical proper acceleration > profiles, and then come to rest in a second inertial frame, > the thread must break. And the reason is the same as > "length contraction". In this case, bringing the thread to > rest in the second inertial frame requires applying a > geometrical projection onto the spatial coordinates of > the second frame, and the two rockets are further apart > than they were when at rest in the first frame. You're babbling. Al, in the lead ship, accelerates faster than Bob (in their frames); his burn rate is higher. This is required to meet the scenario's conditions, i.e. Sam must see a fixed separation at all times, and follows from the Lorentz math. Thus, Al flies away from Bob, the rope breaks. Couldn't be simper! Ignore the rest of the universe, no need for projections, frames, clock sync, yada yada. Further, it isn't a matter of "bringing the thread to rest in the second inertial frame". The thread snaps long before that. > Again, a purely geometrical effect has > physical consequences. Nonsense! A PHYSICAL effect ensued from the PHYSICAL action of Al flying away from Bob! A purely geometrical effect is PURELY GEOMETRICAL. >> Furthermore, contraction would be a compressive force, >> but the thread actually breaks through strain. > > You confused yourself by taking the NAME literally. > That's why I always put "length contraction" in scare > quotes -- it is a very poor name for the actual > phenomenon. Watching you go off the rails, highlights the tang of this paradox. You continue to miss the point: the conundrum presented to Sam. If he's ignorant of relativity, he sees the string snap, for no apparent reason. If he knows some relativity, he wonders why the arrow flies faster and faster, without contracting. > In this case, the distance between the two rockets in the > SECOND frame is "length contracted" when measured in the > FIRST frame. well, who woulda guessed?. > So I won't attempt to discuss yet another new scenario > except to say that you are still confused. yeah, I'm so confused, I had to explain your own analogy to you. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 20:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SYWdnYhdI_AXx2nKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394729 |
On 10/3/16 10/3/16 2:02 PM, RichD wrote: > On September 28, tjrob137 wrote: >> "Length contraction" is NOT an "apparent" >> contraction, even though it is indeed a geometrical projection. >> It can (but need not) involve more than just "LOOKING". > I quoted the WIkipedia article, > which claims that length contraction, as seen > from Sam's stationary frame, explains the break. Wikipedia is speaking rather loosely, but you seem to be reading even worse -- note carefully the difference between "explains" and "causes", because you seem to have them confused. What breaks the string is the fact that the rockets move further apart. When seen from the original inertial frame, "length contraction" MODELS this. I put "length contraction" and "time dilation" in quotes because they are not very good names for the actual phenomena. >> If you try to carry a ladder through a narrow doorway, what >> matters is the geometrical projection of the ladder's length >> onto the doorway's width. This purely geometrical relation >> CLEARLY has physical consequences (and is not just "looking"). > > You're saying that Sam, WATCHING the ladder, > or the spaceships, causes the ladder (string) > to break??? NO! The string breaks because the rockets move further apart. When seen from the original inertial frame, "length contraction" MODELS this, and it is a geometrical projection. > The projections are merely mathematical > constructions, to explain the physical phenomena > PASSIVELY SEEN by Sam. But it's the REAL > PHYSICAL ACTION of carrying the ladder through > the doorway, and Al flying away from Bob, which > results in disaster! Yes, it is the rockets moving further apart that causes the string to break. It is the ladder not fitting through the doorway that causes the problem. Both of these are MODELED by a geometrical projection. > [... further obfuscation and waffling] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ac7e706-d11f-4b60-bf50-930d1162c54b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394872 |
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 01:42:41 UTC, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/3/16 10/3/16 2:02 PM, RichD wrote: > > On September 28, tjrob137 wrote: > >> "Length contraction" is NOT an "apparent" > >> contraction, even though it is indeed a geometrical projection. > >> It can (but need not) involve more than just "LOOKING". > > I quoted the WIkipedia article, > > which claims that length contraction, as seen > > from Sam's stationary frame, explains the break. > > Wikipedia is speaking rather loosely, but you seem to be reading even worse -- > note carefully the difference between "explains" and "causes", because you seem > to have them confused. What breaks the string is the fact that the rockets move > further apart. When seen from the original inertial frame, "length contraction" > MODELS this. > > I put "length contraction" and "time dilation" in quotes > because they are not very good names for the actual phenomena. > > > >> If you try to carry a ladder through a narrow doorway, what > >> matters is the geometrical projection of the ladder's length > >> onto the doorway's width. This purely geometrical relation > >> CLEARLY has physical consequences (and is not just "looking"). > > > > You're saying that Sam, WATCHING the ladder, > > or the spaceships, causes the ladder (string) > > to break??? > > NO! The string breaks because the rockets move further apart. When seen from the > original inertial frame, "length contraction" MODELS this, and it is a > geometrical projection.' As clearly stated in the Wikipedia article, the LT only predicts the rockets to move further apart in their own reference frame for synchronous acceleration in the stationary frame not their own. This is simply due to the RoS. If they accelerate synchronously in their own frame, they would not move further apart. As an analogy, consider two runners with one given a head start of 100m. If the starting gun is fired from behind the trailing runner, the leading runner will hear it later, so the distance of the two runners will change. If on the other hand both runners have a synchronized starting gun next to them, both will start simultaneously and the distance will not change (assuming they run at the same speed).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 22:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <T-OdnbMw2bF8eHTKnZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393267 |
On 9/21/16 9/21/16 5:17 PM, Thomas wrote: > 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. Not just me. This is an aspect of SR and GR, not me. > It is very clear what acceleration means, namely, by definition, a change of > velocity with regard to some inertial reference frame. But that is not always how people actually use the word. And it is not always the most useful meaning, either. ESPECIALLY HERE. Above I specified PROPER acceleration. But that is most definitely not "a change of velocity with regard to some inertial reference frame", it is a change of velocity successively with regard to the succession of instantaneously co-moving inertial frames occupied by the accelerating rocket. Constant proper acceleration is, as I said, equivalent to using a rocket with constant thrust. That's why it is useful. >> 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. Not so. In SR, the coordinates of each rocket ROTATE IN SPACETIME as each rocket accelerates. This is what makes them be further apart when they both turn off their engines (after following identical profiles in PROPER acceleration). It is also what makes their clocks not be synchronized in their final inertial frame (after their engines are off). You clearly do not understand this, as you deny it in everything you write. > 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? No. Think about it.... >> 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. Obviously you do not know what "paradox" actually means. Look it up, don't guess -- you are VERY BAD at guessing here. >> Another way of looking at it: If the rockets cease accelerating at any >> elapsed proper time T (> 0), they will both come to rest in some inertial >> frame F(T), and the distance between them in F(T) increases with >> increasing T. That directly implies that for any F(T) the front rocket must >> come to rest in it BEFORE the rear rocket comes to rest in it (here >> "before" is measured in F(T)). > > That claim is based on the assumption of identical acceleration profiles in > the inertial frame, not the accelerated frame. Go back and READ WHAT I WROTE. I said explicitly "proper acceleration". You read with such carelessness that you will be unable to understand anything more subtle than the nose in front of your face. And even that is doubtful. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b486958-c2df-4ab1-8aee-ad0ce9ed9d1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393943 |
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 03:22:15 UTC, tjrob137 wrote: > Not so. In SR, the coordinates of each rocket ROTATE IN SPACETIME as each rocket > accelerates. This is what makes them be further apart when they both turn off > their engines (after following identical profiles in PROPER acceleration). It is > also what makes their clocks not be synchronized in their final inertial frame > (after their engines are off). I told you already that your statement is wrong. In the Bell's Spaceship paradox the acceleration profiles are identical in the initial inertial frame not the accelerated frame ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox ). In our case, the acceleration profiles are identical in the rockets' frame. > > 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? > > No. Think about it.... From the principle of homogeneity of space it then follows that it can not possible matter if I displace one of the rockets somewhere else. The relative acceleration between the rockets must be the same (namely zero)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 03:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrvkb3$46l$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #393251 |
Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> writes: >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. Umm, no. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 09:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns0pqp$18gk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393251 |
On 9/21/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas wrote: > 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. Well, interestingly, this is not true. In the momentary rest frame of the rockets, they will recede from each other. You might want to read up on the "Bell's spaceship paradox". > This also implies that the clocks > will always be synchronized in the momentary rest frame of the rockets. Nor is this true. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web