Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #397787 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-06 02:02 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-22 15:48 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 389 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 02:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 11:29 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 12:28 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-06 04:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 05:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:08 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:42 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-06 15:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:25 -0800
Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 21:25 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:46 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 23:10 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 08:35 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 00:19 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 10:33 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:07 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 07:20 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:33 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 02:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-07 03:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 16:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 17:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 17:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 19:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 19:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 19:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 20:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 23:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-08 03:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:25 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 06:23 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 06:27 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-08 06:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 22:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 22:59 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-08 10:17 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:31 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-09 02:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 09:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 19:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 01:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:10 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:37 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 10:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-08 08:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 10:43 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-08 20:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:43 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 07:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 08:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 11:03 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 09:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:46 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 17:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:14 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 03:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 03:09 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 22:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 12:25 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-10 03:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-10 15:26 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 16:13 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 08:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 16:05 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 10:55 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:54 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 10:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-10 06:20 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-08 18:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 23:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:36 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 04:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 04:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 13:57 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 16:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:30 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:47 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 16:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-10 17:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 07:40 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:24 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:51 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 07:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:40 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 08:11 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 17:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-10 06:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:40 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:28 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 16:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:48 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:27 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:45 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-10 17:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-10 19:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-10 20:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:50 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 13:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 23:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 05:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 05:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 11:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 13:53 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 12:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 14:26 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 13:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:21 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 13:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 12:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 13:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 06:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:31 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 08:16 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 13:08 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 06:14 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 09:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 12:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 14:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-11 23:45 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 05:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 08:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-14 05:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 06:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:52 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 12:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 16:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 14:41 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 09:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 11:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 12:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 17:06 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 21:59 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 22:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-19 09:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 06:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:08 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 05:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 20:39 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-23 08:54 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:03 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:15 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-27 07:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-28 02:23 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-28 06:25 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:46 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-28 17:08 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-28 23:52 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:33 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-28 07:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-29 05:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-29 14:50 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:37 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 09:59 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 08:57 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 09:00 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 10:21 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 05:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 19:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-01 08:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:00 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-01 12:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:20 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-02 04:37 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 15:24 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-02 14:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 23:51 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-03 04:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 06:01 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 16:45 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 10:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 06:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 05:41 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:27 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 18:15 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-13 04:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 20:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 05:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-14 13:27 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 08:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 13:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 23:12 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-17 17:57 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 13:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 12:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> - 2016-11-17 22:08 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:32 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:05 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 04:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:12 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-23 15:55 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:13 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-21 17:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 05:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:06 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 05:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:18 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-23 09:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:20 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 22:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 20:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 20:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 05:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 08:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:32 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:36 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 07:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-13 22:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 04:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:33 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 06:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:51 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 17:43 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 19:28 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 16:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 12:32 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 13:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 14:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 14:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 15:25 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 14:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 09:25 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 10:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-14 12:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 14:05 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-16 10:32 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 17:03 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 18:17 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 17:26 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 10:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 21:05 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck sdf <sdf@sdf.sdf> - 2016-11-17 20:31 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 21:57 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> - 2016-11-20 22:33 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:14 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 09:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:43 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 04:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 04:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:56 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 05:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:45 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:45 +0100
Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 05:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-07 12:20 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:33 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 06:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 17:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 09:42 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 09:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 09:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 12:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:11 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 22:17 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 20:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:01 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 15:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 16:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 16:59 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:54 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 20:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 12:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 12:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 14:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 14:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 06:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-13 07:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 15:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 11:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 04:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 20:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 20:16 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 12:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 09:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 17:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 11:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 12:17 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 14:22 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-20 13:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 21:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:48 -0800
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 10:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1cce9$1oj7$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399612 |
On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger >>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. >>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. >>>>>> >>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? >>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity >>>> being worked on my physicists. >>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? >> >> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced >> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that >> physicists have for what a theory must be. > > In that case SR is not a theory. Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. > >> >> You have an IDEA, not a theory. IDEAS from untrained hack amateurs who >> don't even know what physics terms mean don't draw interest from physicists. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 07:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <edd8dbf6-8f1e-463d-be43-538217abfa49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399788 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger > >>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. > >>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? > >>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity > >>>> being worked on my physicists. > >>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? > >> > >> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced > >> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that > >> physicists have for what a theory must be. > > > > In that case SR is not a theory. > > Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. > Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct > predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame ( different location in the E-Matrix) and constant speed of light (he speed of light is isotropic c in every location in the E-Matrix) and the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frame (every location of in the E-Matrix).....as you can see these SR assumed the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix and that's why SR has the same math as LET. That means that the SR derivation is the E-Matrix derivation. That's why SR is not a separate physical theory......it is a exact copy of the LET derivation using different terms for the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. > > > > >> > >> You have an IDEA, not a theory. IDEAS from untrained hack amateurs who > >> don't even know what physics terms mean don't draw interest from physicists. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 02:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1g4fa$vbs$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #399904 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > In that case SR is not a theory. >> >> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. >> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct >> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. >No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame >( different location in the E-Matrix) Stupid Ken, there is no E-Matrix in SR. > and constant speed of light (he >speed of light is isotropic c Stupid Ken, that is one of the two postulates upon which SR is built. > in every location in the E-Matrix) Stupid Ken, again there is no E-Matrix in SR. > and the >laws of physics are the same in all inertial frame Stupid Ken, that is the other postulate that SR is based on. > (every location of in >the E-Matrix)..... Stupid Ken, once again there is no E-Matrix in SR. >as you can see these SR assumed the exclusive >properties of the E-Matrix Stupid Ken, yet again there is no E-Matrix for SR to assume anything about. > and that's why SR has the same math as LET. Stupid Ken, SR has only some of the math the same as LET. >That means that the SR derivation is the E-Matrix derivation. Stupid Ken, the E-Matrix is something from a total failure of a theory. SR, on the other hand, has been very successful. So saying that SR is based in a failed theory is completely bogus. > That's why >SR is not a separate physical theory......it is a exact copy of the LET >derivation using different terms for the exclusive properties of the >E-Matrix. Stupid Ken, you base that claim on a half dozen false claims and you try yet again to connect SR to a complete failure of a theory by trying to connect SR to the failed E-Matrix, that claim of yours is obviously false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 06:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fee5dad0-6d07-4607-baf9-ae77dd116bda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399970 |
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 9:23:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> > In that case SR is not a theory. > >> > >> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. > >> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct > >> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. > > >No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame > >( different location in the E-Matrix) > > Stupid Ken, there is no E-Matrix in SR. Moron an inertial frame in SR is just a location in the stationary aether (the E-Matrix).....every location in the stationary E-Matrix is an inertial frame. > > > and constant speed of light (he > >speed of light is isotropic c > > Stupid Ken, that is one of the two postulates upon which SR is built. Hey moron.....both SR postulate were born from the E-Matrix. Only the E-Matrix can claim that the speed of light in every location is isotropic c and the laws of physics are the same in very location of the E-Matrix. Gee you are stupid.....no wonder your name is Moron-y. > > > in every location in the E-Matrix) > > Stupid Ken, again there is no E-Matrix in SR. > > > and the > >laws of physics are the same in all inertial frame > > Stupid Ken, that is the other postulate that SR is based on. > > > (every location of in > >the E-Matrix)..... > > Stupid Ken, once again there is no E-Matrix in SR. > > >as you can see these SR assumed the exclusive > >properties of the E-Matrix > > Stupid Ken, yet again there is no E-Matrix for SR to assume anything > about. > > > and that's why SR has the same math as LET. > > Stupid Ken, SR has only some of the math the same as LET. > > >That means that the SR derivation is the E-Matrix derivation. > > Stupid Ken, the E-Matrix is something from a total failure of a theory. > SR, on the other hand, has been very successful. So saying that SR is > based in a failed theory is completely bogus. > > > That's why > >SR is not a separate physical theory......it is a exact copy of the LET > >derivation using different terms for the exclusive properties of the > >E-Matrix. > > Stupid Ken, you base that claim on a half dozen false claims and you try > yet again to connect SR to a complete failure of a theory by trying to > connect SR to the failed E-Matrix, that claim of yours is obviously false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 08:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1hfvf$1jgl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400017 |
On 11/28/2016 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame >>> ( different location in the E-Matrix) >> Stupid Ken, there is no E-Matrix in SR. > Moron an inertial frame in SR is just a location in the stationary aether > (the E-Matrix).....every location in the stationary E-Matrix is an inertial frame. There you go inventing your own language again. Nobody cares. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1hoak$3nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400017 |
kenseto wrote: >> Stupid Ken, that is one of the two postulates upon which SR is built. > > Hey moron.....both SR postulate were born from the E-Matrix. Only the > E-Matrix can claim that the speed of light in every location is > isotropic c and the laws of physics are the same in very location of the > E-Matrix. Gee you are stupid.....no wonder your name is Moron-y. Indeed. Morony doesn't know anything about tensors nor E-Matrix. Greek to him all together.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 23:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1ifvg$32l$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #400017 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 9:23:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Stupid Ken, there is no E-Matrix in SR. >Moron an inertial frame in SR is just a location in the stationary aether > (the E-Matrix).....every location in the stationary E-Matrix is an inertial > frame. No, Stupid Ken. There is no E-Matrix in SR. And you never did explain how an inertial frame could be stationary in the E-Matrix and there is a second inertial frame that is moving at constant speed relative to the first frame. If the first is stationary in the E-Matrix, than how can the second moving frame be inertial, and also stationary in the E-Matrix? Simple. There is no such thing as an E-Matrix! >> > and constant speed of light (he >> >speed of light is isotropic c >> >> Stupid Ken, that is one of the two postulates upon which SR is built. >Hey moron.....both SR postulate were born from the E-Matrix. No, Stupid Ken, SR never mentions anything called the E-Matrix. SR is over 100 years old, and the E-Matrix is something you babbled more recently. > Only the E-Matrix can claim that the speed of light in every location > is isotropic c and the laws of physics are the same in very location >of the E-Matrix. Gee you are stupid.....no wonder your name is Moron-y. No, Stupid Ken. There is no E-Matrix in SR, and never has been. SR states that all inertial frames have isotropic c and the laws of physics are the same in every frame. This comes from the two postulates, not any failure of a theory with an E-Matrix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 08:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1hf6g$1gdu$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399904 |
On 11/27/2016 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger >>>>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. >>>>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? >>>>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity >>>>>> being worked on my physicists. >>>>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? >>>> >>>> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced >>>> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that >>>> physicists have for what a theory must be. >>> >>> In that case SR is not a theory. >> >> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. >> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct >> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. > > No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame None of what you write below is anything more than a self-serving delusion. The fact remains that SR features: - Derivations of the equations from the concepts - Calculations of distinct predictions - Comparison of those predictions with experiment Your idea does not, and therefore is not a physical theory as recognized by physicists. Period, end of story. > ( different location in the E-Matrix) and constant speed of light (he speed > of light is isotropic c in every location in the E-Matrix) and the laws of > physics are the same in all inertial frame (every location of in the E-Matrix) > .....as you can see these SR assumed the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix > and that's why SR has the same math as LET. That means that the SR derivation > is the E-Matrix derivation. That's why SR is not a separate physical theory. > .....it is a exact copy of the LET derivation using different terms for the > exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> You have an IDEA, not a theory. IDEAS from untrained hack amateurs who >>>> don't even know what physics terms mean don't draw interest from physicists. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 07:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <313f1de6-fc3b-4bc0-8fde-76736c96ac32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400020 |
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:32:51 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/27/2016 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger > >>>>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. > >>>>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? > >>>>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity > >>>>>> being worked on my physicists. > >>>>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? > >>>> > >>>> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced > >>>> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that > >>>> physicists have for what a theory must be. > >>> > >>> In that case SR is not a theory. > >> > >> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. > >> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct > >> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. > > > > No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame > > None of what you write below is anything more than a self-serving delusion. > > The fact remains that SR features: > - Derivations of the equations from the concepts Every location in the stationary E-Matrix have the following exclusive properties: 1. The speed of light in the E-Matrix frame is isotropic c. 2. The laws of physics in every location of the E-Matrix are the same. These two concepts give rise to the math of IRT that includes SRT and LET as subsets. > - Calculations of distinct predictions IRT give the same predictions as SRT and LET.....in addition IRT gives other prediction that does not contradicting observations as does SRT. > - Comparison of those predictions with experiment IRT predictions are fully agree with experiments. > > Your idea does not, and therefore is not a physical theory as recognized > by physicists. Period, end of story. Based on the above SRT is not a physical theory.....it is a subset of IRT because its postulates are derived by renaming the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. > > > ( different location in the E-Matrix) and constant speed of light (he speed > > of light is isotropic c in every location in the E-Matrix) and the laws of > > physics are the same in all inertial frame (every location of in the E-Matrix) > > .....as you can see these SR assumed the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix > > and that's why SR has the same math as LET. That means that the SR derivation > > is the E-Matrix derivation. That's why SR is not a separate physical theory. > > .....it is a exact copy of the LET derivation using different terms for the > > exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> You have an IDEA, not a theory. IDEAS from untrained hack amateurs who > >>>> don't even know what physics terms mean don't draw interest from physicists. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 09:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1hk2i$1rcr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400024 |
On 11/28/2016 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:32:51 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/27/2016 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger >>>>>>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. >>>>>>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? >>>>>>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity >>>>>>>> being worked on my physicists. >>>>>>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced >>>>>> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that >>>>>> physicists have for what a theory must be. >>>>> >>>>> In that case SR is not a theory. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. >>>> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct >>>> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. >>> >>> No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame >> >> None of what you write below is anything more than a self-serving delusion. >> >> The fact remains that SR features: >> - Derivations of the equations from the concepts > > Every location in the stationary E-Matrix have the following exclusive properties: > 1. The speed of light in the E-Matrix frame is isotropic c. > 2. The laws of physics in every location of the E-Matrix are the same. > These two concepts give rise to the math of IRT that includes SRT and LET as subsets. This is NOT a derivation of equations from concepts. I get the feeling you don't even know what such a derivation looks like. > >> - Calculations of distinct predictions > > IRT give the same predictions as SRT and LET.....in addition IRT gives other > prediction that does not contradicting observations as does SRT. SRT does not predict anything that contradicts observations. Not one thing you can cite. > >> - Comparison of those predictions with experiment > > IRT predictions are fully agree with experiments. You say you have distinct predictions. Those have not been compared to experiment. >> >> Your idea does not, and therefore is not a physical theory as recognized >> by physicists. Period, end of story. > > Based on the above SRT is not a physical theory. Bullshit. SRT does all of the three things I mentioned. > ....it is a subset of IRT because its postulates are derived by renaming > the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. >> >>> ( different location in the E-Matrix) and constant speed of light (he speed >>> of light is isotropic c in every location in the E-Matrix) and the laws of >>> physics are the same in all inertial frame (every location of in the E-Matrix) >>> .....as you can see these SR assumed the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix >>> and that's why SR has the same math as LET. That means that the SR derivation >>> is the E-Matrix derivation. That's why SR is not a separate physical theory. >>> .....it is a exact copy of the LET derivation using different terms for the >>> exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have an IDEA, not a theory. IDEAS from untrained hack amateurs who >>>>>> don't even know what physics terms mean don't draw interest from physicists. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 05:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f943e6b-7287-4441-b455-56b3c3a61b63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400029 |
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/28/2016 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:32:51 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/27/2016 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger > >>>>>>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. > >>>>>>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? > >>>>>>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity > >>>>>>>> being worked on my physicists. > >>>>>>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced > >>>>>> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that > >>>>>> physicists have for what a theory must be. > >>>>> > >>>>> In that case SR is not a theory. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. > >>>> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct > >>>> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. > >>> > >>> No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame > >> > >> None of what you write below is anything more than a self-serving delusion. > >> > >> The fact remains that SR features: > >> - Derivations of the equations from the concepts > > > > Every location in the stationary E-Matrix have the following exclusive properties: > > 1. The speed of light in the E-Matrix frame is isotropic c. > > 2. The laws of physics in every location of the E-Matrix are the same. > > These two concepts give rise to the math of IRT that includes SRT and LET as subsets. > > This is NOT a derivation of equations from concepts. > I get the feeling you don't even know what such a derivation looks like. Idiot.....both SRT postulates were born from the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. Therefore the SRT math derivation is also the E-Matrix derivation. > > > > >> - Calculations of distinct predictions > > > > IRT give the same predictions as SRT and LET.....in addition IRT gives other > > prediction that does not contradicting observations as does SRT. > > SRT does not predict anything that contradicts observations. Not one > thing you can cite. Between two clocks A and B in relative motion SRT predicts: 1. A predicts that B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. 2. B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ba. One of the above SRT predictions is wrong. Why? Because in our universe: A cannot accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate and at the same time B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate......one of these predictions is wrong. IRT predicts: 1. A predicts that B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1predictions 1/gamma_ab or faster by a factor of gamma_ab. 2. B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ba or faster by a factor of gamma_ba. Only one of A's predictions and one of B's prediction is correct. As you can see, IRT correctly rejects the bogus idea of mutual time dilation and at the same time gives the correct prediction for each clock. > > > > >> - Comparison of those predictions with experiment > > > > IRT predictions are fully agree with experiments. > > You say you have distinct predictions. Those have not been compared to > experiment. Sure I have distinct predictions as shown above. > >> Your idea does not, and therefore is not a physical theory as recognized > >> by physicists. Period, end of story. > > > > Based on the above SRT is not a physical theory. > > Bullshit. SRT does all of the three things I mentioned. No SRT is not a physical theory because it gives the wrong prediction prediction for A or B as shown above. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1k4ka$or6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #400163 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/28/2016 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> The fact remains that SR features: >> >> - Derivations of the equations from the concepts >> > >> > Every location in the stationary E-Matrix have the following exclusive properties: >> > 1. The speed of light in the E-Matrix frame is isotropic c. >> > 2. The laws of physics in every location of the E-Matrix are the same. >> > These two concepts give rise to the math of IRT that includes SRT and LET as subsets. >> >> This is NOT a derivation of equations from concepts. >> I get the feeling you don't even know what such a derivation looks like. >Idiot.....both SRT postulates were born from the exclusive properties of the >E-Matrix. Therefore the SRT math derivation is also the E-Matrix derivation. Yet you are unable to come up with a single equation from your IRT concepts, which was Odd's point. That's yet another reason why IRT is a complete failure. (plus, of course, there is no E-Matrix in SR, so anything connecting SR to any E-Matrix is automatically wrong) >> >> - Calculations of distinct predictions >> > >> > IRT give the same predictions as SRT and LET.....in addition IRT gives other >> > prediction that does not contradicting observations as does SRT. >> >> SRT does not predict anything that contradicts observations. Not one >> thing you can cite. >Between two clocks A and B in relative motion SRT predicts: Nobody cares what anyone predicts. I predict Ken Seto will be caught by these men in white suits with a giant butterfly net and placed into a rubber room. See what that prediction is worth? >1. A predicts that B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. >2. B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ba. >One of the above SRT predictions is wrong. Nope. A and B measure two different things so it is not a conflict that A measures (not predicts) B's clock runs slow and B measures (not predicts) A's clock runs slow. If only some day you actually studied and learned SR.... >IRT predicts: Of course predictions are useless, yet another reason IRT is useless. >> > IRT predictions are fully agree with experiments. >> >> You say you have distinct predictions. Those have not been compared to >> experiment. >Sure I have distinct predictions as shown above. Where are your comparisons to experiment? >> >> Your idea does not, and therefore is not a physical theory as recognized >> >> by physicists. Period, end of story. >> > >> > Based on the above SRT is not a physical theory. >> >> Bullshit. SRT does all of the three things I mentioned. >No SRT is not a physical theory because it gives the wrong prediction >prediction for A or B as shown above. No experiment disagrees with SRT within SRT's realm of validity. You are, of course, wrong about SR having a wrong prediction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 06:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd4a65f6-a3a3-43ce-9728-2ab87261c2c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400168 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 9:50:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/28/2016 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >> >> The fact remains that SR features: > >> >> - Derivations of the equations from the concepts > >> > > >> > Every location in the stationary E-Matrix have the following exclusive properties: > >> > 1. The speed of light in the E-Matrix frame is isotropic c. > >> > 2. The laws of physics in every location of the E-Matrix are the same. > >> > These two concepts give rise to the math of IRT that includes SRT and LET as subsets. > >> > >> This is NOT a derivation of equations from concepts. > >> I get the feeling you don't even know what such a derivation looks like. > > >Idiot.....both SRT postulates were born from the exclusive properties of the > >E-Matrix. Therefore the SRT math derivation is also the E-Matrix derivation. > > Yet you are unable to come up with a single equation from your IRT concepts, > which was Odd's point. That's yet another reason why IRT is a complete > failure. Moron.....look at the equations of IRT in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > (plus, of course, there is no E-Matrix in SR, so anything connecting SR to any > E-Matrix is automatically wrong) > > >> >> - Calculations of distinct predictions > >> > > >> > IRT give the same predictions as SRT and LET.....in addition IRT gives other > >> > prediction that does not contradicting observations as does SRT. > >> > >> SRT does not predict anything that contradicts observations. Not one > >> thing you can cite. > > >Between two clocks A and B in relative motion SRT predicts: > > Nobody cares what anyone predicts. I predict Ken Seto will be caught by > these men in white suits with a giant butterfly net and placed into a rubber > room. See what that prediction is worth? > > >1. A predicts that B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. > >2. B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ba. > > >One of the above SRT predictions is wrong. > > Nope. A and B measure two different things so it is not a conflict that A > measures (not predicts) B's clock runs slow and B measures (not predicts) A's > clock runs slow. > > If only some day you actually studied and learned SR.... > > >IRT predicts: > > Of course predictions are useless, yet another reason IRT is useless. > > >> > IRT predictions are fully agree with experiments. > >> > >> You say you have distinct predictions. Those have not been compared to > >> experiment. > > >Sure I have distinct predictions as shown above. > > Where are your comparisons to experiment? > > >> >> Your idea does not, and therefore is not a physical theory as recognized > >> >> by physicists. Period, end of story. > >> > > >> > Based on the above SRT is not a physical theory. > >> > >> Bullshit. SRT does all of the three things I mentioned. > > >No SRT is not a physical theory because it gives the wrong prediction > >prediction for A or B as shown above. > > No experiment disagrees with SRT within SRT's realm of validity. > You are, of course, wrong about SR having a wrong prediction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 09:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1mt0d$1uk6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400294 |
On 11/30/2016 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 9:50:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Yet you are unable to come up with a single equation from your IRT concepts, >> which was Odd's point. That's yet another reason why IRT is a complete >> failure. > > Moron.....look at the equations of IRT in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf Writing down an equation is different than DERIVING an equation. Do you know how to DERIVE an equation? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 08:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1k50p$1njs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400163 |
On 11/29/2016 7:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/28/2016 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:32:51 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/27/2016 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger >>>>>>>>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? >>>>>>>>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity >>>>>>>>>> being worked on my physicists. >>>>>>>>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced >>>>>>>> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that >>>>>>>> physicists have for what a theory must be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In that case SR is not a theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. >>>>>> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct >>>>>> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. >>>>> >>>>> No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame >>>> >>>> None of what you write below is anything more than a self-serving delusion. >>>> >>>> The fact remains that SR features: >>>> - Derivations of the equations from the concepts >>> >>> Every location in the stationary E-Matrix have the following exclusive properties: >>> 1. The speed of light in the E-Matrix frame is isotropic c. >>> 2. The laws of physics in every location of the E-Matrix are the same. >>> These two concepts give rise to the math of IRT that includes SRT and LET as subsets. >> >> This is NOT a derivation of equations from concepts. >> I get the feeling you don't even know what such a derivation looks like. > > Idiot.....both SRT postulates were born from the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. > Therefore the SRT math derivation is also the E-Matrix derivation. I was SO hoping you would say this. You are claiming that Einstein in 1905 anticipated that Ken Seto would be born 31 years later and that one day in the 1990s Ken would conceive of the E-matrix, and so Einstein stole the idea from the future to claim fame by postulating special relativity instead, in a deliberate attempt to steal your thunder and rob you of rightful fame. Ken, it is right that you are in a home where you are cared for by professionals, because you are not safe to care for yourself any more. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c0c0ceb5-35d8-4bb3-b35e-d53c26519f24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400170 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 9:57:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/29/2016 7:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/28/2016 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:32:51 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/27/2016 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? > >>>>>>>>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity > >>>>>>>>>> being worked on my physicists. > >>>>>>>>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced > >>>>>>>> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that > >>>>>>>> physicists have for what a theory must be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In that case SR is not a theory. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. > >>>>>> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct > >>>>>> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. > >>>>> > >>>>> No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame > >>>> > >>>> None of what you write below is anything more than a self-serving delusion. > >>>> > >>>> The fact remains that SR features: > >>>> - Derivations of the equations from the concepts > >>> > >>> Every location in the stationary E-Matrix have the following exclusive properties: > >>> 1. The speed of light in the E-Matrix frame is isotropic c. > >>> 2. The laws of physics in every location of the E-Matrix are the same. > >>> These two concepts give rise to the math of IRT that includes SRT and LET as subsets. > >> > >> This is NOT a derivation of equations from concepts. > >> I get the feeling you don't even know what such a derivation looks like. > > > > Idiot.....both SRT postulates were born from the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. > > Therefore the SRT math derivation is also the E-Matrix derivation. > > I was SO hoping you would say this. You are claiming that Einstein in > 1905 anticipated that Ken Seto would be born 31 years later and that one > day in the 1990s Ken would conceive of the E-matrix, and so Einstein > stole the idea from the future to claim fame by postulating special > relativity instead, in a deliberate attempt to steal your thunder and > rob you of rightful fame. No idiot, LET came before SRT and LET is based on the existence of an aether. The problem is that there is no description of the structure of the LET aether........I was able to come up with a structured aether called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix gives rise to the inverse square law and a new theory of gravity that satisfies all observations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 09:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1k56b$1nsc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400163 |
On 11/29/2016 7:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > Between two clocks A and B in relative motion SRT predicts: > 1. A predicts that B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. > 2. B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ba. > > One of the above SRT predictions is wrong. Why? Because in our universe: A cannot accumulate > clock seconds at a slower rate and at the same time B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds > at a slower rate......one of these predictions is wrong. Nope, experiments where the clocks are both in INERTIAL MOTION support the predictions of relativity. Now there are other cases where one of the clocks is broken, or one of the clocks is NOT IN INERTIAL MOTION (like the GPS), where mutual time dilation does not hold. But SRT only makes this prediction for clocks that are both in INERTIAL motion. Now, I know that you believe that such an experimental result is impossible, but you are flat wrong. Experimental data proves that you are wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 06:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1696b7cc-7cba-421d-a5ca-2e96312d6d0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400172 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/29/2016 7:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Between two clocks A and B in relative motion SRT predicts: > > 1. A predicts that B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. > > 2. B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ba. > > > > One of the above SRT predictions is wrong. Why? Because in our universe: A cannot accumulate > > clock seconds at a slower rate and at the same time B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds > > at a slower rate......one of these predictions is wrong. > > Nope, experiments where the clocks are both in INERTIAL MOTION support > the predictions of relativity. There is no inertial motion exists on earth and there is no experimental support for mutual time dilation. Every experiment so far shows that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. >Now there are other cases where one of > the clocks is broken, or one of the clocks is NOT IN INERTIAL MOTION > (like the GPS), where mutual time dilation does not hold. But SRT only > makes this prediction for clocks that are both in INERTIAL motion. This is a mute point.....no two clocks on earth are in INERTIAL MOTION. That's why they accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > Now, I know that you believe that such an experimental result is > impossible, but you are flat wrong. Experimental data proves that you > are wrong. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 10:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1mu9u$39t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400297 |
On 11/30/2016 8:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/29/2016 7:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Between two clocks A and B in relative motion SRT predicts: >>> 1. A predicts that B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. >>> 2. B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ba. >>> >>> One of the above SRT predictions is wrong. Why? Because in our universe: A cannot accumulate >>> clock seconds at a slower rate and at the same time B predicts that A accumulates clock seconds >>> at a slower rate......one of these predictions is wrong. >> >> Nope, experiments where the clocks are both in INERTIAL MOTION support >> the predictions of relativity. > > There is no inertial motion exists on earth Within experimental precision, yes there is. > and there is no experimental support for mutual time dilation. Untrue. > Every experiment so far shows that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds > at different rates. Also untrue. Your ignorance of experimental results is no excuse. There are more experimental results than you are personally aware of, because you do not read. Denial of published data is an act of irrationality. > >> Now there are other cases where one of >> the clocks is broken, or one of the clocks is NOT IN INERTIAL MOTION >> (like the GPS), where mutual time dilation does not hold. But SRT only >> makes this prediction for clocks that are both in INERTIAL motion. > > This is a mute point.....no two clocks on earth are in INERTIAL MOTION. That's why > they accumulate clock seconds at different rates. Also untrue. > >> >> Now, I know that you believe that such an experimental result is >> impossible, but you are flat wrong. Experimental data proves that you >> are wrong. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 05:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <04db2f29-5dab-43b4-9a55-67af7de77225@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400328 |
W dniu środa, 30 listopada 2016 17:21:22 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > There is no inertial motion exists on earth > > Within experimental precision, yes there is. On Earth? Where, precisely? > > and there is no experimental support for mutual time dilation. > > Untrue. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > > Every experiment so far shows that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds > > at different rates. > > Also untrue. Your ignorance of experimental results With unsignificant exception of clocks controlled by Shit's fanatics - true. Check at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web