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 19 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 34 Next page →
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 03:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <977cbea2-da0e-4393-bb81-5197a991f455@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394514 |
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 19:43:43 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:24:30 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 1 October 2016 00:23:55 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 2:35:50 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, 30 September 2016 20:14:06 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Galilean transform relates two FRAMES in MOTION wrt each other, > > > > > so your bloviating fantasy rejects that one, too. > > > > > > > > ANY velocity dependent transformation for the coordinates of a light > > > > signal is incompatible with the light speed postulate. > > > > > > What the heck do you mean by "coordinates > > > of a light signal"? What does THAT have to do with a transform? > > > > If you knew how Einstein derived the LT, you wouldn't be asking that. > > I DO know how he derived it. The REAL question is, can YOU derive it? > > > > The LT does not have such coordinates because of gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > but that doesn't mean that it is "incompatible with invariant c. > > > > It is incompatible if you define the speed of light by different sets of > > events related to the propagation of the light signal in the two reference > > frames. > > Complete asininity. From > > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.pdf ) > > "x1/x2 = t1/t2 = q (3) > "where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of > convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q =1" > > There's where you made the BIG mistake. Were you taking stupid pills > when you did that? That the LT exists with q NOT equal to 1 proves > that you are dead wrong. > > You started off on the wrong foot when you said: > > "The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with > the propagation of a light signal" > > It is not at all necessary that you have ANY events. You were okay when > you said: > > "and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time coordinates" > > You should have followed that up with a mathematical expression of that: > > x2 = q*(x1 + a*t1) > t2 = p*(t1 + b*x1) > > THAT is what your statement means. Have we used any "events" here? Nope. > > Now apply the Principle of Relativity. Galileo's will do: When the ship > moves away from the stationary dock at velocity v, the ship can consider > itself to be stationary and observes the dock moving away at -v. Apply > those conditions to the general equations: > > x2 = 0 when x1 = v*t1, thus 0 = q*(v*t1 + a*t1), so a = -v > > x2 = -v*t2 = q*(0 - v*t1) = -q*v*t1, so t2 = q*t1 > > Also, when x1 = 0, t2 = p*(t1 + b*x1) = p*t1 > > So p = q, and we have: > > x2 = q*(x1 - v*t1) > t2 = q*(t1 + b*x1) > > If we require that q = 1 and b = 0, we get the Galilean transform, thus > your stupid trick of pretending that you can make q = 1 without consequence > actually eliminates all transforms other than the GT. Well, you could > allow b to be other than zero, but that would not agree with reality. > > Now let's require x2 = c*t2 when x1 = c*t1: > > c*t2 = c*q*(t1 + b*c*t1) = q*(c*t1 - v*t1) > > b*c^2 = -v, so b = -v/c^2 > > And we almost have the LT: > > x2 = q*(x1 - v*t1) > t2 = q*(t1 - v*x1/c^2) > > All that remains is to evaluate q. It turns out that > > q = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > which is definitely NOT unity. The proof of this is left to the padawan > learner (that's you). You should read more carefully: the indices 1 and 2 relate to DIFFERENT EVENTS, so by definition there can not be a transformation between them (yet still the speed of light postulate must apply to these). A TRANSFORMATION can only be between the SAME EVENTS, just viewed in different reference frames (and the indices for that are 1 and 1'). The point is that if you enforce the speed of light postulate for the latter (like Einstein did) it could not possibly hold for the independent events anymore (which it should). So the assumption that the postulate can be applied to the transformed events must be wrong. On this web page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/speed-of-light-postulate.htm I have given a slightly less formal, illustrated version of my article, which may help you understand my point (indices used there are B and R instead of 1 and 2). It is all a matter of how and how not to define the speed of light in the stationary frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba27bfa7-98ef-4ed2-8f04-cf09573388ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394581 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:37:55 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > On Saturday, 1 October 2016 19:43:43 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Complete asininity. From > > > > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.pdf ) > > > > "x1/x2 = t1/t2 = q (3) > > "where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of > > convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q =1" > > > > There's where you made the BIG mistake. Were you taking stupid pills > > when you did that? That the LT exists with q NOT equal to 1 proves > > that you are dead wrong. > > > > You started off on the wrong foot when you said: > > > > "The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with > > the propagation of a light signal" > > > > It is not at all necessary that you have ANY events. You were okay when > > you said: > > > > "and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time > > coordinates" > > > > You should have followed that up with a mathematical expression of that: > > > > x2 = q*(x1 + a*t1) > > t2 = p*(t1 + b*x1) > > > > THAT is what your statement means. Have we used any "events" here? Nope. > > > > Now apply the Principle of Relativity. Galileo's will do: When the ship > > moves away from the stationary dock at velocity v, the ship can consider > > itself to be stationary and observes the dock moving away at -v. Apply > > those conditions to the general equations: > > > > x2 = 0 when x1 = v*t1, thus 0 = q*(v*t1 + a*t1), so a = -v > > > > x2 = -v*t2 = q*(0 - v*t1) = -q*v*t1, so t2 = q*t1 > > > > Also, when x1 = 0, t2 = p*(t1 + b*x1) = p*t1 > > > > So p = q, and we have: > > > > x2 = q*(x1 - v*t1) > > t2 = q*(t1 + b*x1) > > > > If we require that q = 1 and b = 0, we get the Galilean transform, thus > > your stupid trick of pretending that you can make q = 1 without consequence > > actually eliminates all transforms other than the GT. Well, you could > > allow b to be other than zero, but that would not agree with reality. > > > > Now let's require x2 = c*t2 when x1 = c*t1: > > > > c*t2 = c*q*(t1 + b*c*t1) = q*(c*t1 - v*t1) > > > > b*c^2 = -v, so b = -v/c^2 > > > > And we almost have the LT: > > > > x2 = q*(x1 - v*t1) > > t2 = q*(t1 - v*x1/c^2) > > > > All that remains is to evaluate q. It turns out that > > > > q = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > which is definitely NOT unity. The proof of this is left to the padawan > > learner (that's you). > > You should read more carefully: the indices 1 and 2 relate to DIFFERENT > EVENTS, My x1 and a2 do NOT refer to "events." They are merely positions along axes. You'd better read and UNDERSTAND what I wrote. > It is all a matter of how and how not to define the speed of light in the > stationary frame. There are only TWO ways, AFAIK, to "define" speed for ANYTHING. They have been worked out long ago and both methods give the same result. Yours is not either of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 05:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8b49b7b-87c1-40d9-a254-75945d0fef7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394514 |
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 19:43:43 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > All that remains is to evaluate q. It turns out that > > q = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > which is definitely NOT unity. The proof of this is left to the padawan > learner (that's you). In addition to what I said above: As the indices 1 and 2 relate to different events (associated with the set of detectors the respective frame), the factor g merely relates what relativity would call the corresponding proper length and time units in the two frames. Choosing q=1 merely says that t On Saturday, 1 October 2016 19:43:43 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:24:30 AM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 1 October 2016 00:23:55 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 2:35:50 PM UTC-6, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, 30 September 2016 20:14:06 UTC, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Galilean transform relates two FRAMES in MOTION wrt each other, > > > > > so your bloviating fantasy rejects that one, too. > > > > > > > > ANY velocity dependent transformation for the coordinates of a light > > > > signal is incompatible with the light speed postulate. > > > > > > What the heck do you mean by "coordinates > > > of a light signal"? What does THAT have to do with a transform? > > > > If you knew how Einstein derived the LT, you wouldn't be asking that. > > I DO know how he derived it. The REAL question is, can YOU derive it? > > > > The LT does not have such coordinates because of gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > but that doesn't mean that it is "incompatible with invariant c. > > > > It is incompatible if you define the speed of light by different sets of > > events related to the propagation of the light signal in the two reference > > frames. > > Complete asininity. From > > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.pdf ) > > "x1/x2 = t1/t2 = q (3) > "where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of > convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q =1" > > There's where you made the BIG mistake. Were you taking stupid pills > when you did that? That the LT exists with q NOT equal to 1 proves > that you are dead wrong. > > You started off on the wrong foot when you said: > > "The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with > the propagation of a light signal" > > It is not at all necessary that you have ANY events. You were okay when > you said: > > "and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time coordinates" > > You should have followed that up with a mathematical expression of that: > > x2 = q*(x1 + a*t1) > t2 = p*(t1 + b*x1) > > THAT is what your statement means. Have we used any "events" here? Nope. > > Now apply the Principle of Relativity. Galileo's will do: When the ship > moves away from the stationary dock at velocity v, the ship can consider > itself to be stationary and observes the dock moving away at -v. Apply > those conditions to the general equations: > > x2 = 0 when x1 = v*t1, thus 0 = q*(v*t1 + a*t1), so a = -v > > x2 = -v*t2 = q*(0 - v*t1) = -q*v*t1, so t2 = q*t1 > > Also, when x1 = 0, t2 = p*(t1 + b*x1) = p*t1 > > So p = q, and we have: > > x2 = q*(x1 - v*t1) > t2 = q*(t1 + b*x1) > > If we require that q = 1 and b = 0, we get the Galilean transform, thus > your stupid trick of pretending that you can make q = 1 without consequence > actually eliminates all transforms other than the GT. Well, you could > allow b to be other than zero, but that would not agree with reality. > > Now let's require x2 = c*t2 when x1 = c*t1: > > c*t2 = c*q*(t1 + b*c*t1) = q*(c*t1 - v*t1) > > b*c^2 = -v, so b = -v/c^2 > > And we almost have the LT: > > x2 = q*(x1 - v*t1) > t2 = q*(t1 - v*x1/c^2) > > All that remains is to evaluate q. It turns out that > > q = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > which is definitely NOT unity. The proof of this is left to the padawan > learner (that's you). In addition to what I said above: As the indices 1 and 2 relate to different events (associated with the respective set of detectors in the corresponding frame), the factor q merely relates what relativity would call the corresponding proper length and time units in the two frames. Choosing q=1 merely says that they are the same (which is usually the tacit assumption made anyway; I just formulated this explicitly).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsk1cp$ved$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394284 |
On 9/29/2016 3:45 PM, Thomas wrote: > On Thursday, 29 September 2016 15:19:25 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/29/2016 2:23 AM, Thomas wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 21:56:54 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Thomas, elementary concepts and logic don't get you anywhere when you >>>> have fundamental misunderstandings or giant gaps of understanding about >>>> what relativity actually says. >>>> >>>> If you are engaged in conversation here about relativity, I'm going to >>>> presume that you are reasonably conversant in the subject by virtue of >>>> having read a fair amount about it AND UNDERSTOOD IT. When you come to >>>> this group to engage in "conversation" and the first few things out of >>>> your mouth show that you do NOT understand relativity, even the basic >>>> concepts, then of course I'm going to recommend that you go back outside >>>> the group to do some reading and try to get it closer to being right >>>> before coming back in. >>>> >>>> It would be the same way if you came into a woodworking group and you >>>> didn't understand the difference between an ogee and a cyma and you >>>> nevertheless wanted to engage in "conversation" about the fundamental >>>> flaws of woodworking. >>>> >>>> Using your own brain is a pointless venture if you are uneducated in the >>>> subject about which you'd like to think. >>> >>> A parrot that is repeating what it hears is not having a conversation. You >>> repeating what you read (or thought you read) somewhere are not having a >>> conversation. A scientific conversation is about being able and willing >>> to question your own viewpoint and address arguments on their own merit. >>> >> >> Sorry, Thomas, but this is the difference between philosophy and >> science. Philosophy is about arguments and reasoning and can be fun and >> games without relying on any reference to outside information. Science, >> however, is different than science, in that reasoning and argument is >> NOT ENOUGH. What is critical is reference to data. Data is accumulated >> by experimenters, and it is the accumulation of data that settles >> disputes between one perfectly reasonable set of assumptions and another >> perfectly reasonable set of assumptions. Disputes between reasonable >> sets of assumptions are NOT settled by argument and reasoning and >> "conversation" as you call it. They are settled with DATA. >> >> This, Thomas, is the value of books. Books present not only the >> reasonable sets of assumptions and the arguments plied with them, but >> also the DATA that either supports or refutes them. That is, if you're >> reading the right books. This is also the reason why referring to those >> books is not "parroting" as you call it -- it is CENTRAL to science, >> because otherwise, you're just doing philosophy and NOT science. >> >> I think you've done yourself a VAST disservice by thinking that whether >> relativity is right or not can be settled by argument and reasoning. >> That's not how science works, and not how the validity of relativity was >> ever established. > > I know all the arguments presented in books, lectures and articles. You have demonstrated with enough errors here that you do NOT know all the arguments presented in books, lectures and articles. > I have > been educated by them. But you should not understand them as bibles . Any > resource of this kind must be rather limited in its scope and depth and > also may contain errors. This is why one must read MORE THAN ONE BOOK on the subject. It is highly unlikely that in a pool of ten books written on the subject, all ten will make the same error or that between all ten of them there is some important scope that is left uncovered. > So they can only serve as a basis to form your > own understanding of the subject. They can not free you from doing your > own thinking. Otherwise we will indeed degenerate into a society of parrots. > Doing your own thinking without reference to reading multiple books is a WASTE OF TIME. I will remind you that what settles whether relativity is right or wrong is EXPERIMENTAL DATA. How on earth are you going to do that determination by "doing your own thinking"? Hmmmm? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a244fb7-d83a-443b-a766-8167d182cb56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394288 |
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 21:34:21 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/29/2016 3:45 PM, Thomas wrote: > > I have > > been educated by them. But you should not understand them as bibles . Any > > resource of this kind must be rather limited in its scope and depth and > > also may contain errors. > This is why one must read MORE THAN ONE BOOK on the subject. It is > highly unlikely that in a pool of ten books written on the subject, all > ten will make the same error or that between all ten of them there is > some important scope that is left uncovered. On the contrary, it is highly likely in a world of parrots. By definition, scientific books and articles must have a uniform point of view, regardless of whether the view is wrong or not. If 10 books would say 10 different things, the educational system of indoctrination would not work. The only difference in most books is a matter of style, amounting to personal preferences. So whether you read 1 book or 10 books doesn't make a difference (other than for the book publishers profiting from it). Books and scientific mainstream articles are not there for discussions questioning the fundamentals. Otherwise the whole educational system would break down. These kind of discussion can only be done on the fringe, like in forums, personal communications etc. And again, by definition, this requires going beyond what is covered in books by analyzing the latter and thus understanding the context on a higher level. It is paradoxical then if you permanently avoid discussion by pointing me to books and articles (that in many cases even don't say what you claim they do) .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsp4k2$2pg$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394438 |
On 9/30/2016 3:23 PM, Thomas wrote: > On Thursday, 29 September 2016 21:34:21 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/29/2016 3:45 PM, Thomas wrote: > >>> I have >>> been educated by them. But you should not understand them as bibles . Any >>> resource of this kind must be rather limited in its scope and depth and >>> also may contain errors. > >> This is why one must read MORE THAN ONE BOOK on the subject. It is >> highly unlikely that in a pool of ten books written on the subject, all >> ten will make the same error or that between all ten of them there is >> some important scope that is left uncovered. > > On the contrary, it is highly likely in a world of parrots. By definition, > scientific books and articles must have a uniform point of view, regardless > of whether the view is wrong or not. If 10 books would say 10 different things, > the educational system of indoctrination would not work. The only difference > in most books is a matter of style, amounting to personal preferences. So > whether you read 1 book or 10 books doesn't make a difference (other than > for the book publishers profiting from it). Books and scientific mainstream > articles are not there for discussions questioning the fundamentals. Otherwise > the whole educational system would break down. These kind of discussion can > only be done on the fringe, like in forums, personal communications etc. And > again, by definition, this requires going beyond what is covered in books by > analyzing the latter and thus understanding the context on a higher level. It > is paradoxical then if you permanently avoid discussion by pointing me to > books and articles (that in many cases even don't say what you claim they do) . > This is all self-serving bullshit, Thomas. I'll tell you the same thing I tell John Sefton. Refusal to read books is pinned on many excuses, but they are all masks for one kind of terror or another, and none of them is justified. John claims that thinking for yourself without reading books is better than reading books and not having any original thought at all. I disagree. BOTH are bad and will not make any contribution to physics. If anyone wants to make a contribution to physics, they have to study and learn from a lot of books and THEN have original thinking. Anything else is begging for a shortcut and making bad excuses. You can take whatever road you choose, but I'm telling you, the one you're on leads to a dead end in the woods where all you're going to end up being is lost and frustrated pretty quickly. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 03:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e5e3dbb-e4c0-4f70-a751-3f3d29358a8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394522 |
On Saturday, 1 October 2016 20:00:06 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/30/2016 3:23 PM, Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, 29 September 2016 21:34:21 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/29/2016 3:45 PM, Thomas wrote: > > > >>> I have > >>> been educated by them. But you should not understand them as bibles . Any > >>> resource of this kind must be rather limited in its scope and depth and > >>> also may contain errors. > > > >> This is why one must read MORE THAN ONE BOOK on the subject. It is > >> highly unlikely that in a pool of ten books written on the subject, all > >> ten will make the same error or that between all ten of them there is > >> some important scope that is left uncovered. > > > > On the contrary, it is highly likely in a world of parrots. By definition, > > scientific books and articles must have a uniform point of view, regardless > > of whether the view is wrong or not. If 10 books would say 10 different things, > > the educational system of indoctrination would not work. The only difference > > in most books is a matter of style, amounting to personal preferences. So > > whether you read 1 book or 10 books doesn't make a difference (other than > > for the book publishers profiting from it). Books and scientific mainstream > > articles are not there for discussions questioning the fundamentals. Otherwise > > the whole educational system would break down. These kind of discussion can > > only be done on the fringe, like in forums, personal communications etc. And > > again, by definition, this requires going beyond what is covered in books by > > analyzing the latter and thus understanding the context on a higher level. It > > is paradoxical then if you permanently avoid discussion by pointing me to > > books and articles (that in many cases even don't say what you claim they do) . > > > > This is all self-serving bullshit, Thomas. I'll tell you the same thing > I tell John Sefton. > > Refusal to read books is pinned on many excuses, but they are all masks > for one kind of terror or another, and none of them is justified. John > claims that thinking for yourself without reading books is better than > reading books and not having any original thought at all. I disagree. > BOTH are bad and will not make any contribution to physics. > > If anyone wants to make a contribution to physics, they have to study > and learn from a lot of books and THEN have original thinking. > > Anything else is begging for a shortcut and making bad excuses. You can > take whatever road you choose, but I'm telling you, the one you're on > leads to a dead end in the woods where all you're going to end up being > is lost and frustrated pretty quickly. You shouldn't be making up your own facts here. I told you already that I have been educated by books, articles, lectures etc. There is little to nothing that any book could add regarding the questions I pose. Pointing me to them shows that you either haven't understood my questions or try to avoid addressing them directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73924d0d-5bd3-4f70-85aa-947ce02ef195@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393775 |
On Sunday, Odd Bodkin wrote: > It is NOT POSSIBLE for clocks to remain synchronized while spatially > separated and accelerating together. So, the GPS satellite clocks all drift off? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c4bac7a-6c04-4514-a958-99eb9097730d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394067 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 6:55:00 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote: > > On Sunday, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > It is NOT POSSIBLE for clocks to remain synchronized while spatially > > separated and accelerating together. > > So, the GPS satellite clocks all drift off? > > -- > Rich The GPS clocks aren't accelerating but the do "drift off." That's why they have to be re-synchronized regularly. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 03:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nsi17i$hrs$9@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394067 |
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> writes: >On Sunday, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> It is NOT POSSIBLE for clocks to remain synchronized while spatially >> separated and accelerating together. >So, the GPS satellite clocks all drift off? The GPS clocks are not synchronized with each other. They can't be, at least not the ones in different orbits. The ones in different orbits approach and recede from each other as they orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c408a63e-205e-4f84-bd7d-50cca431b8bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393520 |
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 1:39:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas wrote: > On Friday, 23 September 2016 19:25:07 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > These are SEPARATE clocks, right? You can ensure by an explicit > > procedure that the clocks are synchronized at T=0. You will NOT have any > > assurance that they will STAY synchronized once the acceleration has > > started. And in fact, the tested reality of relativity is that they DO > > NOT stay synchronized after you have started. > > De-synchronization in SR is between clocks that move relatively to each other. The two rockets here are always at REST relatively to each other due to the identical acceleration, so this can not be an issue. You're not paying attention. The rockets are at rest relative to each other _only_as_observed_from_the_original_rest_frame_! And, of course, as measured in that frame, the clocks DO remain synchronized to each other (since they are simply two separate clocks that traverse exactly the same trajectory _as_measured_in_that_frame_). But as soon as the rockets start up, they are no longer at rest in that original frame, and they are no longer stationary relative to each other as measured in any other frame, including any inertial frame that's instantaneously co-moving with one of the rockets. So their clocks are NOT synchronized in any of those frames, including, of course, the final inertial frame in which they are at rest after both rockets stop firing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 15:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f34465e-cc68-448c-b1e5-58f36f0bc37d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393522 |
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 4:07:54 PM UTC-5, me wrote: > You're not paying attention. The rockets are at rest relative to each > other _only_as_observed_from_the_original_rest_frame_! > > And, of course, as measured in that frame, the clocks DO remain synchronized > to each other (since they are simply two separate clocks that traverse > exactly the same trajectory _as_measured_in_that_frame_). > > But as soon as the rockets start up, they are no longer at rest in > that original frame, and they are no longer stationary relative to > each other as measured in any other frame, including any inertial frame > that's instantaneously co-moving with one of the rockets. So their clocks > are NOT synchronized in any of those frames, including, of course, the > final inertial frame in which they are at rest after both rockets stop > firing. Nice joke, "me". You made me think that somebody had spoofed my account, and I started to panic a bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 12:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns5jdo$k5s$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #393520 |
Użytkownik "Thomas" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:e38b9d95-39c7-49e1-acac-23c28851fffb@googlegroups.com... |De-synchronization in SR is between clocks that move relatively to each other. The two rockets here are always at REST relatively to each other due to the identical acceleration, so this can not be an issue. As I've said, you underestimate the madness of Great Guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 06:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns1gjm$j1f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393387 |
On 23/09/16 05:51, Thomas wrote: > On Thursday, 22 September 2016 18:33:11 UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Now take a look at the rockets in the Bell paradox. Same >> acceleration set up as in your case, and they are NOT the same >> distance apart in the rocket frame as when they started. > > Again, in the Bell's paradox the spaceships are assumed to accelerate > simultaneously in the stationary frame not their own frame. This is > not the scenario I am discussing. Synch to clocks together, put one in each spaceship and make them both fire their engines at precisely 12.00.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 13:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4ednSvYXP8rtXnKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393339 |
On 9/22/16 9/22/16 - 9:28 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > In the momentary rest frame of the [accelerating] > rockets, they will recede from each other. Be careful, because there really is no such frame while the rockets are accelerating. [I assume the two rockets accelerate along the line between them, starting simultaneously from some inertial frame with identical proper-acceleration profiles. Each rocket carries a clock that indicates its elapsed proper time, with T=0 at launch. For simplicity in discussions, assume each rocket's proper acceleration is either zero or a constant; its engine is either full on or completely off.] At any given elapsed proper time T (> 0) of the two rockets, they both move with the same velocity relative to the initial inertial frame. Consider an inertial frame moving with that relative velocity, and you find the two rockets are NOT at rest in it simultaneously (in that frame). So while there is indeed an inertial frame moving with that relative velocity, the rockets are NEVER both at rest in it (they are at rest in it one at a time). So it is not really "the momentary rest frame of the [accelerating] rockets" because there is no applicable moment. 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)). SR is subtle.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 14:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns1bk3$ae3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393374 |
On 9/22/2016 1:53 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/22/16 9/22/16 - 9:28 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> In the momentary rest frame of the [accelerating] >> rockets, they will recede from each other. > > Be careful, because there really is no such frame while the rockets are > accelerating. > > [I assume the two rockets accelerate along the line between > them, starting simultaneously from some inertial frame with > identical proper-acceleration profiles. Each rocket carries > a clock that indicates its elapsed proper time, with T=0 at > launch. For simplicity in discussions, assume each rocket's > proper acceleration is either zero or a constant; its engine > is either full on or completely off.] > > At any given elapsed proper time T (> 0) of the two rockets, they both > move with the same velocity relative to the initial inertial frame. > Consider an inertial frame moving with that relative velocity, and you > find the two rockets are NOT at rest in it simultaneously (in that frame). > > So while there is indeed an inertial frame moving with that relative > velocity, the rockets are NEVER both at rest in it (they are at rest in > it one at a time). So it is not really "the momentary rest frame of the > [accelerating] rockets" because there is no applicable moment. > > Another way of looking at it: If the rockets cease accelerating at any > elapsed proper time T (> 0), they will both come to rest in some > inertial frame F(T), and the distance between them in F(T) increases > with increasing T. That directly implies that for any F(T) the front > rocket must come to rest in it BEFORE the rear rocket comes to rest in > it (here "before" is measured in F(T)). > > > SR is subtle.... Thanks for the careful restatement. > > > Tom Roberts > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 06:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns1f1p$gi3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393381 |
On 23/09/16 05:32, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/22/2016 1:53 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 9/22/16 9/22/16 - 9:28 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> In the momentary rest frame of the [accelerating] >>> rockets, they will recede from each other. >> >> Be careful, because there really is no such frame while the rockets are >> accelerating. >> >> [I assume the two rockets accelerate along the line between >> them, starting simultaneously from some inertial frame with >> identical proper-acceleration profiles. Each rocket carries >> a clock that indicates its elapsed proper time, with T=0 at >> launch. For simplicity in discussions, assume each rocket's >> proper acceleration is either zero or a constant; its engine >> is either full on or completely off.] >> >> At any given elapsed proper time T (> 0) of the two rockets, they both >> move with the same velocity relative to the initial inertial frame. >> Consider an inertial frame moving with that relative velocity, and you >> find the two rockets are NOT at rest in it simultaneously (in that >> frame). >> >> So while there is indeed an inertial frame moving with that relative >> velocity, the rockets are NEVER both at rest in it (they are at rest in >> it one at a time). So it is not really "the momentary rest frame of the >> [accelerating] rockets" because there is no applicable moment. What a load of crap. Synch two clocks whilst together, send them out in space and their readings will indicate identical absolute times at their locations. If one clock reads 12.00.00, then so does the other, AT THAT ABSOLUTE AND UNIVERSAL INSTANT, wherever it is. Just send an infinite number of synched clocks into space and any passing astronaut will be able to adjust his watch to read the same as every other astronaut's watch anywhere in space. >> >> Tom Roberts >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a672c8d-574f-444b-85e5-7e2386e986a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393399 |
On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 2:30:53 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Synch two clocks whilst together, send them out in space and their > readings will indicate identical absolute times at their locations. > If one clock reads 12.00.00, then so does the other, AT THAT ABSOLUTE > AND UNIVERSAL INSTANT, wherever it is. > > Just send an infinite number of synched clocks into space and any > passing astronaut will be able to adjust his watch to read the same as > every other astronaut's watch anywhere in space. This is so obviously false by both theory and experiment that only an ignoramus would admit to it. It is false according to relativity theory, neither of which have an experiment which refutes them, and it is refuted by many, many experiments. You certainly have delusional problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 08:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns4ap7$rtc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393423 |
On 23/09/16 08:11, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 2:30:53 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> Synch two clocks whilst together, send them out in space and their >> readings will indicate identical absolute times at their locations. >> If one clock reads 12.00.00, then so does the other, AT THAT ABSOLUTE >> AND UNIVERSAL INSTANT, wherever it is. >> >> Just send an infinite number of synched clocks into space and any >> passing astronaut will be able to adjust his watch to read the same as >> every other astronaut's watch anywhere in space. > > This is so obviously false by both theory and experiment that only an > ignoramus would admit to it. It is false according to relativity > theory, neither of which have an experiment which refutes them, and it > is refuted by many, many experiments. You certainly have delusional > problems. You can stick your relativity theory where it belongs...... It is bullshit from start to finish. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 19:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a31630dc-34c0-4005-b258-e81606149870@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393543 |
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 3:36:31 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 23/09/16 08:11, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 2:30:53 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> > >> Synch two clocks whilst together, send them out in space and their > >> readings will indicate identical absolute times at their locations. > >> If one clock reads 12.00.00, then so does the other, AT THAT ABSOLUTE > >> AND UNIVERSAL INSTANT, wherever it is. > >> > >> Just send an infinite number of synched clocks into space and any > >> passing astronaut will be able to adjust his watch to read the same as > >> every other astronaut's watch anywhere in space. > > > > This is so obviously false by both theory and experiment that only an > > ignoramus would admit to it. It is false according to relativity > > theory, neither of which have an experiment which refutes them, and it > > is refuted by many, many experiments. You certainly have delusional > > problems. > > You can stick your relativity theory where it belongs...... > It is bullshit from start to finish. No, you are simply ignorant from start to finish. Ignorance is what makes it easy to generate random claims like this ad infinitum. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web