Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406220 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-20 23:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-06 14:02 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 633 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 23:48 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 04:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-21 05:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 06:43 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-21 06:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-21 21:34 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-02 12:53 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 04:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 08:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 11:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 12:43 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 14:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 15:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 04:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 06:02 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 09:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 12:55 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-28 14:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-29 02:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 04:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-30 05:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 08:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-31 03:17 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 04:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-31 09:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 14:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 07:06 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 05:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 06:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-02 08:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-31 23:10 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 09:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-01 21:06 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-01 17:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-02 21:20 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians noelturntive@live.co.uk - 2017-02-03 06:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-03 20:53 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-03 13:08 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-04 10:22 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-04 09:38 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 02:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 05:26 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 10:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 13:53 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-04 15:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 20:06 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 04:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 05:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 06:02 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 07:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 12:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-05 21:19 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 13:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 13:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 14:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 18:09 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:59 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 08:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 09:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 09:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 10:55 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 13:56 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-06 23:00 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 16:49 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 07:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 08:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:19 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 15:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 19:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 14:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 16:59 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 06:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:20 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 11:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 20:01 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:02 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 06:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:08 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:38 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 08:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 09:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 20:25 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 13:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 06:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 15:32 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-05 14:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 18:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 00:35 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-02 04:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 11:25 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 00:23 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-02 21:19 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:20 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? noelturntive@live.co.uk - 2017-02-03 08:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-27 19:31 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-27 12:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-27 12:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-28 13:48 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 05:22 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-28 17:35 +0100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-01-28 09:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 09:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 09:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 10:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 12:45 -0800
Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-28 13:40 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-28 12:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 14:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 14:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 12:13 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 17:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 11:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:34 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 14:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 06:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 06:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:49 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:02 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:09 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 12:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 15:57 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:08 -0600
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 11:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-06 05:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:11 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:23 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:37 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:25 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 08:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:19 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:32 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:35 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:18 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 15:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-07 17:39 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:10 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 09:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 10:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:54 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 12:28 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:20 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:56 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 08:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 08:37 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:37 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:21 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 12:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-08 16:02 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:39 -0500
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 22:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:08 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:24 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 10:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 12:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 07:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 09:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 12:20 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 12:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:27 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:42 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 09:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:23 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-09 18:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 07:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-10 17:44 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-10 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-10 19:35 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:37 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 18:56 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:46 -0500
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-08 22:46 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 06:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:37 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 08:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-09 18:10 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-08 23:03 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:54 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:05 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 11:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 11:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:46 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:08 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 08:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 19:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 22:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 08:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 08:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 09:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:00 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 09:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 13:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:56 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-09 16:09 +0000
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-09 23:26 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-10 07:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-10 18:31 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-11 05:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-11 14:20 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 11:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 19:08 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 13:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 21:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 23:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 04:50 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 10:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 08:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 16:11 +0000
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 08:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:39 +0000
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 02:28 +0000
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-12 04:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 06:43 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-12 05:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-12 22:25 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 06:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 16:26 +0000
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-13 10:49 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 02:33 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-09 07:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 13:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:57 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 07:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-07 11:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 19:50 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 13:59 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-07 20:15 +0000
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 13:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:10 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:08 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-08 06:57 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:54 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 06:45 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-08 13:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:59 -0600
Re: Silver mirror kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-09 06:46 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:24 -0800
Re: Silver mirror moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-09 23:12 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 13:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:47 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:14 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 18:31 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:47 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 17:50 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:06 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 20:12 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:21 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:22 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-08 09:45 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-08 22:06 +0000
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:38 -0500
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:16 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:45 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:19 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:20 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 18:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 05:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Irvin Starrett <etrrarn@arneir.etr> - 2017-02-03 04:55 +0000
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-29 09:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 15:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-31 07:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 17:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-31 23:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 07:01 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 07:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 08:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 09:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 10:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 12:27 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 12:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 14:46 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 13:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 15:41 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 10:16 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 11:21 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 09:55 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:18 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 12:07 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:40 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:25 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 20:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 19:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:32 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:18 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:52 -0600
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:52 -0800
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 17:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:41 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:40 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:48 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:09 -0500
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 18:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:35 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 19:33 +0000
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:17 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:02 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:40 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:45 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:28 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:58 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 18:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-01 23:41 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 08:26 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 09:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 09:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-02 14:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:36 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 10:07 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:29 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 14:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:50 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 09:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 19:54 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:15 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:32 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-05 18:40 +0100
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 10:00 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:36 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 11:48 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 15:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 06:47 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:04 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-06 14:23 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:29 -0500
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:22 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:26 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:34 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 09:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:54 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:22 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:55 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 07:56 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 08:13 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 10:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:36 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 13:06 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 22:08 +0100
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 16:40 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-05 09:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 15:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 23:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 06:51 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:14 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:30 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 07:27 -0800
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:38 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 08:05 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 08:16 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 09:21 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:44 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:31 -0500
Re: Silver mirror RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 17:33 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:42 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:58 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-03 13:30 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:03 -0600
Re: Silver mirror Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-04 08:20 -0800
Re: Silver mirror rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 09:12 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:51 -0600
Re: Silver mirror benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:39 -0500
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:42 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:03 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:14 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-01 08:10 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 08:44 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 16:19 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 17:29 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 09:07 -0600
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:11 -0800
Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 17:39 -0800
Re: Silver mirror Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-05 20:12 -0600
Re: Silver mirror "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 19:09 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-21 21:28 +0000
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-21 07:01 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 07:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-21 08:17 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 10:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-21 20:03 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 02:55 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-22 01:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 06:20 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 08:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-22 13:12 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-22 13:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 13:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 13:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 14:47 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 07:32 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 16:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? xxein1@att.net - 2017-01-22 20:40 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 18:03 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 21:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:10 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-23 12:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 07:07 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:19 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 12:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:34 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:52 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 19:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 23:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:01 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:41 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:35 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-24 12:49 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 13:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:26 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:52 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 06:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:09 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:30 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:12 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:54 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 08:14 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 09:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-25 09:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 18:46 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 11:53 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 15:29 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:47 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:28 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:45 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 09:45 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 05:42 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-25 07:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:22 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-24 13:21 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 13:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-25 09:45 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:17 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 10:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 20:15 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 13:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-23 13:57 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:32 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:36 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 07:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 08:16 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:47 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 10:00 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 14:18 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 23:24 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 07:03 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-23 17:39 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 17:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 19:33 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 06:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-21 20:18 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? xxein1@att.net - 2017-01-21 19:31 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 07:18 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 12:59 -0600
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 11:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 09:13 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 09:29 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 09:51 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:04 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 10:15 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:23 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 10:37 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:42 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 05:59 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 15:50 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 00:30 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-22 13:25 +1100
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 22:30 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Larisa Kull <looaiuoais@kesfgais.org> - 2017-01-22 07:41 +0000
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 21:42 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 08:44 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-24 09:33 -0800
Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-30 11:05 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 10:58 -0800
Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-06 14:02 -0800
Page 26 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 … 32 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7aj23$u2d$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408105 |
On 2/6/2017 10:16 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > You still don't get it. > > In our REAL universe, the car and can in the car are going at the same speed. If someone > in the car BELIEVES the can is standing still, he needs to have his head examined - or he > is a mathematician who does not understand reality. Or maybe he is just trying to start > an argument. Ed, every time you start to get the point that motion depends on reference point, you lapse back into the everyday notion that the ground is the only "real" reference point. What on earth gives you the basis to say that the ground is any more real a reference point than any other? > > Ed -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 13:35 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7aj5j$u2d$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408096 |
On 2/6/2017 9:27 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > This is the same argument "rotchm" makes. It could be the tree that hit the car and not the car > that hit the tree. I.e., no one cares about CAUSES, the only care about the physics. Nope. > Most people care about causes, NOT the physics. > > I understand that the laws of physics are not concerned with whether the tree ran into the car or > the car ran into the tree, but in the REAL WORLD where people want to understand what happened and > what CAUSED the accident, people DO CARE. > > We live in different worlds. I'm an analyst, an inventor and an amateur scientist. I'm interested > in how things work in this world. You seem to be only interested in how the math and physics work. > > We do not live in a universe where there exists only two space ships passing one another and no one > knows who is moving and who is not. We live in a universe where there are countless reference points > to tell who is moving and who is not, PLUS there were people who used science and physics to CAUSE > their space ships to move, so they KNOW who is moving and how fast relative to the universe around them. > > Ed Ed, I gather that what you are now lamenting is that physicists do not describe things in the way that ordinary people would like to have them described. You have certain vague notions about "physical effect", "cause", and "properties of matter", and you have this fervent belief that people really want to have nature described according to these native notions. This is an appeal to common sense and common experience. What physicists will tell you, however, is that nature doesn't give a damn about how humans are accustomed to thinking about things. And furthermore, the average human has fundamentally WRONG gut feelings about how nature works. Aristotle believed that the natural state of all things is at rest, and that it takes a continuing force to maintain a state of motion. This believe matches customary thought and so it appealed to many. It is, however, flat wrong, and Galileo was the one to show that it is wrong. Your notion that motion can only arise as a result of a force is a good example of a preconception that is flat wrong. Physicists say instead that it is their mandate to figure out the rules that nature operates by, regardless whether that matches our own native expectations. And there are lots of surprises. Getting rid of these incorrect preconceptions is a key step in understanding how nature really works. I would encourage you, Ed, to stop your present process of "just thinking about things", because you cannot identify your own mistaken preconceptions. This is the reason why actually STUDYING physics, starting from basics, is a good idea -- because you'll find plenty of cases well short of relativity where you'll say, "Oh, whoa, really? I had no idea things really worked that way." -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 10:44 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o77kq5$di4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407877 |
On 2/4/2017 3:06 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:36:51 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:16:35 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:13:55 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> >>>> The person in the car deduces (or measures) that the K energy of the >>>> can is ZERO. The person standing on the side of the road >>>> deduces/measures that the K energy of the can is greater than zero. >>>> Now, what CAUSED that change in kinetic energy, Ed? >>> >>> There is NO change in kinetic energy. There is only a >>> mathematical exercise. >> >> No. No math was performed in the above example. Only an actual experiment. >> Stay seated in the 50 mph car...no problem. Stand in front of the car as it approaches... BIG difference in perspective, no? >> >> Dont dodge the question: How can the speed of the can be both zero AND 50 mph? >> Which is the real speed? > > The real speed is 50 mph, of course. Nowhere in the universe would it be zero. It CANNOT be both zero and 50 mph. > Only in some stupid math equation would someone be unable to distinguish between the reality of 50 mph and the fantasy of zero. > > Ed > Are you SURE the "REAL" speed is 50 mph? All you know is that the RELATIVE speed between the car and the ground is 50 mph. But is the ground's speed zero? And doesn't the car's "REAL" speed depend on which way the car is going relative to the way the ground is going? I think you're about to land on something important from Galileo's day, and something you should have learned in high school science but have since forgotten. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 20:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <5899238a$0$10616$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #407979 |
On 2/5/2017 11:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/4/2017 3:06 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:36:51 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:16:35 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:13:55 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >>> >>>>> The person in the car deduces (or measures) that the K energy of the >>>>> can is ZERO. The person standing on the side of the road >>>>> deduces/measures that the K energy of the can is greater than zero. >>>>> Now, what CAUSED that change in kinetic energy, Ed? >>>> >>>> There is NO change in kinetic energy. There is only a >>>> mathematical exercise. >>> >>> No. No math was performed in the above example. Only an actual >>> experiment. >>> Stay seated in the 50 mph car...no problem. Stand in front of the car >>> as it approaches... BIG difference in perspective, no? >>> >>> Dont dodge the question: How can the speed of the can be both zero >>> AND 50 mph? >>> Which is the real speed? >> >> The real speed is 50 mph, of course. Nowhere in the universe would it >> be zero. It CANNOT be both zero and 50 mph. >> Only in some stupid math equation would someone be unable to >> distinguish between the reality of 50 mph and the fantasy of zero. >> >> Ed >> > > Are you SURE the "REAL" speed is 50 mph? All you know is that the > RELATIVE speed between the car and the ground is 50 mph. But is the > ground's speed zero? And doesn't the car's "REAL" speed depend on which > way the car is going relative to the way the ground is going? > > I think you're about to land on something important from Galileo's day, > and something you should have learned in high school science but have > since forgotten. > > He's talking about relativity, Ed, which Galileo invented (not Einstein). Odd doesn't know that though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 17:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <701afdf2-05e3-439f-80a1-d778e9243844@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407846 |
On February 4, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> A can of Coke sitting on the dash of a car has zero kinetic energy, >>>> according to someone sitting in the car. According to someone standing >>>> by a road sign as the car goes by, the can has quite a bit of kinetic >>>> energy. Now, what CAUSED that change in kinetic energy, Ed? > >>> Your argument is bogus and SILLY. The person in the car KNOWS that >>> he, the car and the can of Coke have kinetic energy as a result of >>> their velocity. > > There is NO change in kinetic energy. There is only a mathematical > exercise. Right you are, Ed. Hollywood ought to hire you as consultant. Like, when the Joker attempts escape at 200 mph, and Batman drives alongside, at matched speed, then leaps onto Joker's car, he ought to get clobbered! NO WAY he can survive impact with that much kinetic energy. The sneaky script writers use the "zero relative velocity" ReligioMath rubbish, and fool the public. But they can't fool us - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 10:42 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o77kl5$di4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407826 |
On 2/4/2017 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 3:22 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:54:30 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/3/2017 11:42 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> I'm only interested in the CAUSE of time dilation. If modern physics isn't interested in the cause, >>>>> then modern physics is a waste of time. >>>> >>>> Ed, do you mean by "cause" some sort of physical interaction? >>>> >>>> Or do you mean some way of clearly understanding why it is observed? >>>> >>>> What exactly do you mean by "cause"? >>> >>> I mean: What CAUSES time to dilate? Movement doesn't "cause" time dilation. Movement has to have >>> some "physical effect" on some PROPERTY OF MATTER that CAUSES or results in time dilation. >> >> Again, you're talking in circles. What does "physical effect" mean to you? >> > > Jeeze. There are 18 NEW messages waiting to be read this morning! And I haven't even finished going through what I opened yesterday. > > A "physical effect" would be like heating an object to cause the physical effect of making the > molecules move around faster. Citing an example is not a good way to put forth the rule. I'm beginning to think you only have a fuzzy idea of what you mean by "physical effect" yourself. Let me attempt to help. When you heat something, you are imparting energy to the thing by means of one of the fundamental interactions, most likely electromagnetic. (Infrared radiation is electromagnetic, the bumping collisions of atoms in materials that are in contact are electromagnetic.) So you are saying that when something experience a change, then this is a result of some exchange of energy and momentum by one of the fundamental physical interactions? If so, let's go back to the situation with momentum. Let's say I'm in a plane headed west. Because the plane's motion is exactly counter to the rotation of the earth, the sun is stationary in the sky. There is a cup of coffee on the tray in front of me. To me, the momentum of the coffee cup is zero. To someone on the ground, however, the coffee cup is flying at 575 mph and so has nonzero momentum. What interaction does the person on the ground do to the coffee cup to give it that momentum? > In time dilation, moving an object causes something within the > object to slow down time for that object. I can speculate on what is happening, but you'd just call > it "speculation." All that can be said for certain right now is that when an object moves at high > speeds or is placed close to a gravitational mass, TIME SLOWS DOWN FOR THAT OBJECT AND *ONLY* FOR > THAT OBJECT. Therefore, some physical element within the object MUST be physically affected by > velocity or gravity. > >> A can of Coke sitting on the dash of a car has zero kinetic energy, >> according to someone sitting in the car. According to someone standing >> by a road sign as the car goes by, the can has quite a bit of kinetic >> energy. Now, what CAUSED that change in kinetic energy, Ed? What >> "physical effect" did the bystander by the road exert on the can to give >> it all that kinetic energy? Hmmm? >> >> If you can't answer that question for BASIC physics, then why are you >> worried about relativity and what causes it? > > Your argument is bogus and SILLY. The person in the car KNOWS that he, the car and the can of > Coke have kinetic energy as a result of their velocity. The bystander also knows this. > There is NO ILLUSION involved. Oh, let's be REALLY careful here. Now let's say there is another can of Coke sitting on the ground next to the road sign. Are you going to say that both the observer in the car and the observer standing on the ground KNOW that this other can of Coke has zero kinetic energy? > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 11:58 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o72gbe$18ep$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407703 |
On 2/3/2017 11:42 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > As I keep saying, your view of science is of no interest to me. I use the "scientific method" > which begins with a question like the two I provided above. Mathematics does not become involved > until you have an answer and want to validate the answer by making a prediction. I disagree that the scientific method always looks for some "cause" as you mentioned in those questions. You may WANT the scientific method to be about that, but it's not going to bow to your will or expectations. For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature works have at their core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is inherently a concept with deep mathematical roots. Are you claiming that such hypotheses are not in keeping with the scientific method? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 13:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <275953b7-34dd-4c15-9b9d-a3357cc1c1bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407706 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/3/2017 11:42 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > As I keep saying, your view of science is of no interest to me. I use the "scientific method" > > which begins with a question like the two I provided above. Mathematics does not become involved > > until you have an answer and want to validate the answer by making a prediction. > > I disagree that the scientific method always looks for some "cause" as > you mentioned in those questions. You may WANT the scientific method to > be about that, but it's not going to bow to your will or expectations. > I never said "the scientific method ALWAYS looks for some cause." If you are going to constantly twist and distort what I'm saying, you're never going to understand anything. The first step in the scientific method is to ask a question. Examples: Why is the raspberry crop so small this year? Why are there so many accidents at Fifth and Main? How does sunlight affect the growth of a plant? Who killed Cock Robin? Where did I leave my keys? > For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature works > have at their core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is > inherently a concept with deep mathematical roots. Are you claiming that > such hypotheses are not in keeping with the scientific method? You make no sense. An hypothesis is the END PRODUCT of the scientific method. You have to start with a question in order to develop an hypothesis as to what the answer might be. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 16:03 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o72unj$vb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407759 |
On 2/3/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 11:42 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> As I keep saying, your view of science is of no interest to me. I use the "scientific method" >>> which begins with a question like the two I provided above. Mathematics does not become involved >>> until you have an answer and want to validate the answer by making a prediction. >> >> I disagree that the scientific method always looks for some "cause" as >> you mentioned in those questions. You may WANT the scientific method to >> be about that, but it's not going to bow to your will or expectations. >> > > I never said "the scientific method ALWAYS looks for some cause." OK, so then we're in agreement that the scientific method does not always look for a cause. So when you told rotchm, and I quote, "If modern physics isn't interested in the cause, then modern physics is a waste of time," then I would guess we're in agreement that modern physics is perfectly in line with the scientific method even if it is not looking for a cause. > If you are going to constantly twist and distort what I'm saying, you're never > going to understand anything. See above quote, Ed. > > The first step in the scientific method is to ask a question. Examples: > Why is the raspberry crop so small this year? Why are there so many accidents > at Fifth and Main? How does sunlight affect the growth of a plant? Who killed > Cock Robin? Where did I leave my keys? That's fine, but it doesn't imply that the answer is going to be found in some physical effect on some property of matter, does it? Here's a question: Why does the kinetic energy of a rock change value simply because it's looked at from a different reference frame? > >> For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature works >> have at their core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is >> inherently a concept with deep mathematical roots. Are you claiming that >> such hypotheses are not in keeping with the scientific method? > > You make no sense. An hypothesis is the END PRODUCT of the scientific method. > You have to start with a question in order to develop an hypothesis as to what > the answer might be. Ed, the hypothesis is not the end product of the scientific method. Does not comparison of the predictions of a hypothesis with quantitative measurements come AFTER the formation of the hypothesis? Please stop blustering, it's getting in the way of you thinking clearly. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 08:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <0a23a7b6-55d5-4300-b72f-9053850b853f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407767 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/3/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/3/2017 11:42 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> As I keep saying, your view of science is of no interest to me. I use the "scientific method" > >>> which begins with a question like the two I provided above. Mathematics does not become involved > >>> until you have an answer and want to validate the answer by making a prediction. > >> > >> I disagree that the scientific method always looks for some "cause" as > >> you mentioned in those questions. You may WANT the scientific method to > >> be about that, but it's not going to bow to your will or expectations. > >> > > > > I never said "the scientific method ALWAYS looks for some cause." > > OK, so then we're in agreement that the scientific method does not > always look for a cause. So when you told rotchm, and I quote, "If > modern physics isn't interested in the cause, then modern physics is a > waste of time," then I would guess we're in agreement that modern > physics is perfectly in line with the scientific method even if it is > not looking for a cause. > > > If you are going to constantly twist and distort what I'm saying, you're never > > going to understand anything. > > See above quote, Ed. > > > > > The first step in the scientific method is to ask a question. Examples: > > Why is the raspberry crop so small this year? Why are there so many accidents > > at Fifth and Main? How does sunlight affect the growth of a plant? Who killed > > Cock Robin? Where did I leave my keys? > > That's fine, but it doesn't imply that the answer is going to be found > in some physical effect on some property of matter, does it? > > Here's a question: Why does the kinetic energy of a rock change value > simply because it's looked at from a different reference frame? > It doesn't. A MATHEMATICAL value may change, but the ACTUAL kinetic energy of the rock does not change just because "it's looked at from a different reference frame." > > > >> For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature works > >> have at their core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is > >> inherently a concept with deep mathematical roots. Are you claiming that > >> such hypotheses are not in keeping with the scientific method? > > > > You make no sense. An hypothesis is the END PRODUCT of the scientific method. > > You have to start with a question in order to develop an hypothesis as to what > > the answer might be. > > Ed, the hypothesis is not the end product of the scientific method. Does > not comparison of the predictions of a hypothesis with quantitative > measurements come AFTER the formation of the hypothesis? > > Please stop blustering, it's getting in the way of you thinking clearly. The scientific method: 1. Make an Observation. 2. Form a Question. 3. Form a Hypothesis. 4. Conduct an Experiment. ... 5. Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion. What is the conclusion reached via the scientific method? Is it a fact, or is it a hypothesis that has passed a test? The point was that you have to start with a question. Yes, you cannot start with a question until to make some observation that results in a question. Sigh. Your argument was: "For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature works have at their core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is inherently a concept with deep mathematical roots. Are you claiming that such hypotheses are not in keeping with the scientific method?" Yes, someone made an observation that resulted in a question which resulted in a finding that there is often "symmetry" in nature. And symmetry is compatible with mathematics. SO WHAT? That doesn't mean that every question is a mathematical question. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 09:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <df88c7f5-dcdc-4dae-bfb2-7637ca7acaf7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407828 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:20:59 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Here's a question: Why does the kinetic energy of a rock change value > > simply because it's looked at from a different reference frame? > > It doesn't. Yes it does. > A MATHEMATICAL value may change, but the ACTUAL kinetic energy > of the rock does not change just because "it's looked at from a > different reference frame." You Are wrong. You seem to have a different concept or definition of kinetic energy (K) , as used in physics. K is NOT an intrinsic property; its a *relation* between observer and observed; its observer dependent. Take a simpler case, the can in the traveling car again. In the frame of the car, the can has zero speed (its position stays at the same place). But in the ground frame, the can is traveling at 50 mph, say (and its position is changing). How can the can have zero speed and 50 mph speed? What is its "true" speed? See? "speed" (and position) is not an intrinsic property of the observed. Its a relation between observer & observed; The way these quantities are defined, they are observer dependent. This is true for K and for time too...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 10:51 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o77l63$ede$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407828 |
On 2/4/2017 10:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/3/2017 11:42 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> As I keep saying, your view of science is of no interest to me. I use the "scientific method" >>>>> which begins with a question like the two I provided above. Mathematics does not become involved >>>>> until you have an answer and want to validate the answer by making a prediction. >>>> >>>> I disagree that the scientific method always looks for some "cause" as >>>> you mentioned in those questions. You may WANT the scientific method to >>>> be about that, but it's not going to bow to your will or expectations. >>>> >>> >>> I never said "the scientific method ALWAYS looks for some cause." >> >> OK, so then we're in agreement that the scientific method does not >> always look for a cause. So when you told rotchm, and I quote, "If >> modern physics isn't interested in the cause, then modern physics is a >> waste of time," then I would guess we're in agreement that modern >> physics is perfectly in line with the scientific method even if it is >> not looking for a cause. >> >>> If you are going to constantly twist and distort what I'm saying, you're never >>> going to understand anything. >> >> See above quote, Ed. >> >>> >>> The first step in the scientific method is to ask a question. Examples: >>> Why is the raspberry crop so small this year? Why are there so many accidents >>> at Fifth and Main? How does sunlight affect the growth of a plant? Who killed >>> Cock Robin? Where did I leave my keys? >> >> That's fine, but it doesn't imply that the answer is going to be found >> in some physical effect on some property of matter, does it? >> >> Here's a question: Why does the kinetic energy of a rock change value >> simply because it's looked at from a different reference frame? >> > > It doesn't. A MATHEMATICAL value may change, but the ACTUAL kinetic energy of the rock does > not change just because "it's looked at from a different reference frame." Perhaps you can distinguish for me between "Actual" kinetic energy and "mathematical value" of kinetic energy. What is the "actual" kinetic energy of a rock, if its "mathematical value" varies from 0 J to 12,537 J, depending on reference frame? What is the "real" kinetic energy? > >>> >>>> For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature works >>>> have at their core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is >>>> inherently a concept with deep mathematical roots. Are you claiming that >>>> such hypotheses are not in keeping with the scientific method? >>> >>> You make no sense. An hypothesis is the END PRODUCT of the scientific method. >>> You have to start with a question in order to develop an hypothesis as to what >>> the answer might be. >> >> Ed, the hypothesis is not the end product of the scientific method. Does >> not comparison of the predictions of a hypothesis with quantitative >> measurements come AFTER the formation of the hypothesis? >> >> Please stop blustering, it's getting in the way of you thinking clearly. > > The scientific method: > > 1. Make an Observation. > 2. Form a Question. > 3. Form a Hypothesis. > 4. Conduct an Experiment. ... > 5. Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion. > > What is the conclusion reached via the scientific method? Is it a fact, or is it a > hypothesis that has passed a test? The PASSED THE TEST is the critical part. > > The point was that you have to start with a question. Yes, you cannot start with a question > until to make some observation that results in a question. Yet there have been many theories that have been generated without benefit of observations driving the question. The Higgs mechanism for example. Newton's universal law of gravity, for example. > > Sigh. > > Your argument was: > > "For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature works have at their > core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is inherently a concept with deep > mathematical roots. Are you claiming that such hypotheses are not in keeping with the scientific method?" > > Yes, someone made an observation that resulted in a question which resulted in a finding > that there is often "symmetry" in nature. And symmetry is compatible with mathematics. Great, so now you tell me what observation of SU(2) symmetry led to the hypothesis that gave Weinberg the Nobel prize. > > SO WHAT? That doesn't mean that every question is a mathematical question. No, it does not. But it DOES mean that it quite often is. And it DOES mean that in order to complete the scientific method, you need to get it in mathematical form in order to make predictions to be tested. Until you have that, you don't have anything that can complete the scientific method. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 20:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <58992554$0$10722$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #407981 |
On 2/5/2017 11:51 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/4/2017 10:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 2/3/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 2/3/2017 11:42 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>> As I keep saying, your view of science is of no interest to me. I >>>>>> use the "scientific method" >>>>>> which begins with a question like the two I provided above. >>>>>> Mathematics does not become involved >>>>>> until you have an answer and want to validate the answer by making >>>>>> a prediction. >>>>> >>>>> I disagree that the scientific method always looks for some "cause" as >>>>> you mentioned in those questions. You may WANT the scientific >>>>> method to >>>>> be about that, but it's not going to bow to your will or expectations. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I never said "the scientific method ALWAYS looks for some cause." >>> >>> OK, so then we're in agreement that the scientific method does not >>> always look for a cause. So when you told rotchm, and I quote, "If >>> modern physics isn't interested in the cause, then modern physics is a >>> waste of time," then I would guess we're in agreement that modern >>> physics is perfectly in line with the scientific method even if it is >>> not looking for a cause. >>> >>>> If you are going to constantly twist and distort what I'm saying, >>>> you're never >>>> going to understand anything. >>> >>> See above quote, Ed. >>> >>>> >>>> The first step in the scientific method is to ask a question. >>>> Examples: >>>> Why is the raspberry crop so small this year? Why are there so many >>>> accidents >>>> at Fifth and Main? How does sunlight affect the growth of a plant? >>>> Who killed >>>> Cock Robin? Where did I leave my keys? >>> >>> That's fine, but it doesn't imply that the answer is going to be found >>> in some physical effect on some property of matter, does it? >>> >>> Here's a question: Why does the kinetic energy of a rock change value >>> simply because it's looked at from a different reference frame? >>> >> >> It doesn't. A MATHEMATICAL value may change, but the ACTUAL kinetic >> energy of the rock does >> not change just because "it's looked at from a different reference >> frame." > > Perhaps you can distinguish for me between "Actual" kinetic energy and > "mathematical value" of kinetic energy. > > What is the "actual" kinetic energy of a rock, if its "mathematical > value" varies from 0 J to 12,537 J, depending on reference frame? > > What is the "real" kinetic energy? > >> >>>> >>>>> For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature works >>>>> have at their core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is >>>>> inherently a concept with deep mathematical roots. Are you claiming >>>>> that >>>>> such hypotheses are not in keeping with the scientific method? >>>> >>>> You make no sense. An hypothesis is the END PRODUCT of the >>>> scientific method. >>>> You have to start with a question in order to develop an hypothesis >>>> as to what >>>> the answer might be. >>> >>> Ed, the hypothesis is not the end product of the scientific method. Does >>> not comparison of the predictions of a hypothesis with quantitative >>> measurements come AFTER the formation of the hypothesis? >>> >>> Please stop blustering, it's getting in the way of you thinking clearly. >> >> The scientific method: >> >> 1. Make an Observation. >> 2. Form a Question. >> 3. Form a Hypothesis. >> 4. Conduct an Experiment. ... >> 5. Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion. >> >> What is the conclusion reached via the scientific method? Is it a >> fact, or is it a >> hypothesis that has passed a test? > > The PASSED THE TEST is the critical part. > >> >> The point was that you have to start with a question. Yes, you cannot >> start with a question >> until to make some observation that results in a question. > > Yet there have been many theories that have been generated without > benefit of observations driving the question. > The Higgs mechanism for example. Higgs is almost certainly wrong. > Newton's universal law of gravity, for example. Newton's mathematical fantasy explains nothing though Odd will scream that it does. >> >> Sigh. >> >> Your argument was: >> >> "For example, many of the fundamental hypotheses about how nature >> works have at their >> core a description of a symmetry of nature. Symmetry is inherently a >> concept with deep >> mathematical roots. Are you claiming that such hypotheses are not in >> keeping with the scientific method?" >> >> Yes, someone made an observation that resulted in a question which >> resulted in a finding >> that there is often "symmetry" in nature. And symmetry is compatible >> with mathematics. > > Great, so now you tell me what observation of SU(2) symmetry led to the > hypothesis that gave Weinberg the Nobel prize. > >> >> SO WHAT? That doesn't mean that every question is a mathematical >> question. > > No, it does not. But it DOES mean that it quite often is. And it DOES > mean that in order to complete the scientific method, you need to get it > in mathematical form in order to make predictions to be tested. Until > you have that, you don't have anything that can complete the scientific > method. Odd mathematics is fantasy. It is not reality. Math is not more real than reality. Proving rules of math certainly does not prove any events in reality. It can predict that they might occur, yes. But prove them, no way. To discuss the findings and rules of mathematics and say that this somehow shows how reality works is about like talking about rules of English grammar and saying that they explain astronomy/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 11:42 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <7ff71638-faa4-4fa8-b697-bf1fc0a7bce3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407703 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:42:55 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 9:13:35 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > I'm only interested in the CAUSE of time dilation. Well, such a notion is not part of modern physics, nor of relativity. So physics & this group is not for you. > If modern physics isn't interested in the cause, then modern > physics is a waste of time. A waste of time for you. Not to physicist nor engineers who use modern physics to make things that work! > question like the two I provided above. And of which I answered succinctly. You wanted the definition & I gave you it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 16:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <97164347-3e72-4987-b776-86dd357fdb61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407703 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:42:55 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> I'm only interested in the CAUSE of time dilation. If modern physics isn't interested in the cause, then modern physics is a waste of time.
Physics has given up on _causes_ a looong time ago, early 19th century
would be my guess (nothing to do with relativity), perhaps even earlier.
It was decided to leave this to philosophers and treat physics as a separate
domain of inquiry ("philosophy" used to include mathematics and physics,
this is reflected in the quaint usage in "Doctor of philosophy" even today).
IOW, nobody knows the _causes_ of _anything_ in physics. Again, this has
nothing to do with relativity per se. There only exist abstract models: if
you think you have _causes_ of _anything_ provided by a physics theory,
all you have to do is very carefully examine the theory's foundations and
you'll soon discover simply a mathematical axiom.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 21:14 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <nMidnbNQS60IaA7FnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #407631 |
On 2/2/17 2/2/17 4:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> 1. How do velocity and gravitation CAUSE time dilation?
They don't "cause" it, in any meaningful sense of the word. "Time dilation" is a
geometrical projection of a temporal interval onto a time coordinate. A moving
clock IS MEASURED to run slow, because the time coordinate of its rest frame is
not parallel to the time coordinate of the frame used for the measurement; a
higher clock in a gravitational potential is MEASURED to run fast, because the
time coordinate of its rest frame is not parallel to that of the frame used for
the measurement. Note that clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, and ALWAYS
display the time coordinate of their rest frame (that's what "clock" means).
Remember that relativity is about spaceTIME, and geometrical notions apply to
time as well as space.
An analogy:
Consider Cartesian coordinates {x,y} on a Euclidean plane,
using cm as a unit. Draw a line from (0,0) to (1,1). One cm
along that line corresponds to 0.707 cm along the x axis
-- what "caused" this? -- NOTHING, it's just a geometrical
relationship, and that line is not parallel to the x axis.
The same applies to "time dilation".
In relativity, every clock ticks at its usual rate, at all times and all places.
But COMPARISONS of clocks that are at different locations or are moving
differently NECESSARILY involve comparing SIGNALS from the clocks, and the
MEASUREMENTS OF THE SIGNALS can be affected by both their motion and by gravity
(spaceTIME curvature).
> 2. What IS Time if velocity and gravitation can CAUSE it go faster or slower?
BUT THEY DO NOT "make it go faster or slower"!!! "Time is what clocks measure"
[#], and clocks always tick at their usual rate. That is, it is not "time" or
clocks that are affected, it is THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE SIGNALS USED FOR THE
COMPARISON that are affected.
[#] Einstein and others. This is MANIFEST, because in every
experiment that uses time, it is measured by a clock. Casual,
everyday definitions are completely irrelevant.
As I have said so often, YOU are confused, and you insist that your confusion is
correct, which colors everything you read or write. You keep ignoring important
aspects of experiments, and imposing your fantasies onto the words you read. In
fact, as my first sentence responding to your #2 shows, if you actually bothered
to LEARN about relativity your questions AND CONFUSIONS would be cleared up. But
the popular articles you have read are INSUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE; you need a
modern textbook and the dedication to STUDY (old textbooks used old terminology
and will just confuse you more).
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 08:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <e2b2c5be-752b-45a4-b7d8-c1de1e52903a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407449 |
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:38:42 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > The fact that t' < t does not mean "runs slow". That is > > > because 'run slow' has not been defined. YOU used that > > > expression w/o defining it, agree? You do not understand what "runs slow" means??? Okay, I'll try again to explain. In 2010, the NIST had two atomic clocks side by side. They verified that the clocks were synchronous. They then raised one of the clocks by 1 foot. And they verified that the higher clock ran FASTER than the lower clock. They could have done the reverse. They could have lowered one of the clocks. In that case, the lower clock would run SLOWER than the higher clock. Either way, the clock that is closer to the center of the earth "RUNS SLOWER." What does "runs slower" mean? 1. It means the atomic cycles within the the clock take longer to complete. 2. It means it takes longer for the lower clock to measure ONE SECOND of time. 3. It means any measured unit of time is longer when you are closer to the center of the earth than when you are farther from the center of the earth. The difference is not noticeable to humans, because it is so small. The NIST paper explained it this way: "if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years." It's on the first page of the NIST paper "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf What it means is that in a million years, the higher clock will measure 3 more seconds than the lower clock. Or, the lower clock will measure 3 fewer seconds than the higher clock. Why? Because time passes as a slower rate the closer you are to the center of a gravitational mass such as the earth. If you still do not understand what "runs slower" means, I suggest you check out the links provided by this Google search: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=atomic+clock+%22runs+slower%22 Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 08:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <68c9e98a-4c8e-476b-a3ca-459dbacc618b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407490 |
You should start to see my pint from the previous post. The expression 'runs slower' is ill defined and is just an 'embellishment'. We say 'run slow' BECAUSE when we compare two clocks, we get one value less that the other; or because of the *incoming* signal (not clock) is less that the cycling values of our clock. All this is an empirical verification taht two values differ; t' < t. THEN this is loosely called 'runs slow', an expression that does not show well what went on (what went on was that two values differed). This is waht I (and Tom btw) are implicitely trying to tell you all along. The predictions of t'<t or the empirical verification of t' < t does not mean 'run slow'. It means t' < t, that two *values* differed. The 'run slow' is just a popularisation, a bad wording, of "two values differ". On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:10:08 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:38:42 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > > > > The fact that t' < t does not mean "runs slow". That is > > > > because 'run slow' has not been defined. YOU used that > > > > expression w/o defining it, agree? > > You do not understand what "runs slow" means??? Okay, I'll try again to explain. > > In 2010, the NIST had two atomic clocks side by side. They verified that the clocks were synchronous. They then raised one of the clocks by 1 foot. And they verified that the higher clock ran FASTER than the lower clock. > > They could have done the reverse. They could have lowered one of the clocks. In that case, the lower clock would run SLOWER than the higher clock. > > Either way, the clock that is closer to the center of the earth "RUNS SLOWER." > > What does "runs slower" mean? > > 1. It means the atomic cycles within the the clock take longer to complete. > 2. It means it takes longer for the lower clock to measure ONE SECOND of time. > 3. It means any measured unit of time is longer when you are closer to the center of the earth than when you are farther from the center of the earth. > > The difference is not noticeable to humans, because it is so small. The NIST paper explained it this way: > > "if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years." > > It's on the first page of the NIST paper "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf > > What it means is that in a million years, the higher clock will measure 3 more seconds than the lower clock. Or, the lower clock will measure 3 fewer seconds than the higher clock. Why? Because time passes as a slower rate the closer you are to the center of a gravitational mass such as the earth. > > If you still do not understand what "runs slower" means, I suggest you check out the links provided by this Google search: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=atomic+clock+%22runs+slower%22 > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 16:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <001dc30b-ebf8-4890-a030-363142dc30ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407127 |
Ed Lake gibbered: It appears Tom Roberts is confusing an "emission" with a "pulse." Ed, you are VERY Rude to Tom Roberts You are like a baby that just learned to stand up in his roll around Walker who is trying to tell Olympic Athletes how to run the 400 meters properly And you are making fun of everyone on your little home page You should put a disclaimer in all your posts that you are ridiculing posters here on your site. You are a Dick, go away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 17:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <d7a17941-92e4-4381-9edd-50ee5d39bd46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407166 |
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 7:19:18 PM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Ed, you are VERY Rude to Tom Roberts > You are like a baby that just learned to stand up in his roll around > Walker who is trying to tell Olympic Athletes how to run > the 400 meters properly > > And you are making fun of everyone on your little home page He is just a coward. He cant stand the heat here & he cant accept being shown wrong, so he sulks away into his own little playground where he can act childish (& dishonest) to his content. Well, he does that alone ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 26 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web