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 4 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 32 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 08:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <aaea6158-4cf3-4af3-a004-3fb94886b89b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408101 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > The problem is that you don not understand the meaning of the words. When Tom says that "length of a second" does not vary, this means that when a clock ticks once, then it ticks once; when is passes from zero to 1, it passes from zero to 1. It does not mean when you compare it to another clock. No matter the clock, when it goes from zero to 1, then it went from 0 to 1. That is all! > Sorry, but that is just gibberish to me. I'm talking about science. In science there is no problem with something running slow. It may be a problem in math, but then math is getting in the way of YOUR understanding of what is really happening. When a clock or object moves, time slows down for that clock or object. PERIOD. That means it takes LONGER for it to go from 0 to 1. If you did not COMPARE it to another clock, you would not NOTICE that the clock runs slow. I'm sorry if that is too complex for your imagined "superior mind," but it is the way the universe works. Ed > And as we all tell you here, the expression "runs slow" is a very bad description & is a popularization to impress the simple minds. You fell trap to this. > > > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 10:15:32 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:09:58 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 2/5/17 2/5/17 3:15 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > If > > > > a second of time is shorter when traveling at 1 meter per second than when > > > > traveling at 1,000 meters per second, and if the speed of light is measured > > > > in meters per second, how can the speed of light be invariant if it is > > > > measured at 299,892,458 meters per SHORT second while traveling at 1 meter > > > > per second and is measured at 299,892,458 meters per LONG second when > > > > traveling at 1,000 meters per second? > > > > > > (I'm speaking loosely to match your phrasing.) > > > > > > The resolution of this is staring you in the face but you refuse to recognize > > > it: the "length of a second" does not vary, and is the same in all inertial frames. > > > > No it is NOT. The length of a second is DIFFERENT in all reference frames. That is what relativity is all about. Time slows down (i.e., the length of a second becomes longer) when an object moves. > > > > > > > > This is actually REQUIRED by SR: the PoR says that the laws of > > > physics that govern the ticking of a given clock must be the > > > same in all inertial frames, so the tick rate of that clock > > > MUST be the same in all inertial frames. > > > > > > > ABSOLUTELY FALSE! The length of a second is NOT A LAW. It is a VARIABLE. The laws of physics are the same regardless of the length of a second or the speed of light. At the top of a mountain the length of a second will be shorter than at the bottom of the mountain, but (to quote Einstein) the "same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." Changing the length of a second does not change an equation or a law. > > > > > You confuse yourself by insisting on reading more into measurements of "time > > > dilation" than is actually there: they do NOT show that "moving clocks run > > > slow", rather they show that MOVING CLOCKS ARE MEASURED TO RUN SLOW. This > > > difference is important, and is accurately modeled as a geometric projection, > > > not any "change" in the tick rate of clocks. > > > > > > > This is the crux of our disagreement. I can find hundreds of sources which will say that "moving clocks run slow" and you will dismiss them all as being wrong because it conflicts with your beliefs. > > > > I can find scientific papers which state that "moving clocks run slow" and you will argue that they are all wrong because they conflict with your beliefs. > > > > You seemed to argue that, in the 2010 NIST experiment, it was the distance from the clock to the eye of the observer that changed, not the height of the clock. You SEEM to believe that time dilation is the result of light taking longer to get to the observer from one clock versus another. That is just plain WRONG and can be demonstrated to be WRONG. > > > > > > > As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, "time dilation" in SR simply CANNOT be > > > modeled as "moving clock run slow" (even though all too many casual authors > > > state it that way). That's because in SR "time dilation" is MUTUAL: for inertial > > > observers A and B, A measures B's clock to run slow, and B measures A's clock to > > > run slow. This is due to the way these particular GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS work, > > > and cannot possibly be due to EITHER clock A or B "slowing down". > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Then let's discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment where Hafele and Keating took four atomic clocks with them on two trips around the world. The clocks ran SLOW due to their velocity, and the clocks ran FAST due to their height when in airplanes. They calculated the expected changes in the clocks ahead of time, and the results were within the margin of error when they did the measurements after the end of the experiments. > > > > Your arguments SEEMS to be that the clocks did not run slow or fast DURING the experiments, they just MAGICALLY changed upon completion of the experiments. > > > > Is that really what you believe? > > > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 09:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <ed9b6904-a6a4-4418-8d83-0c90a7cc8a5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408104 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:10:48 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > The problem is that you don not understand the meaning of the words. > Sorry, but that is just gibberish to me. Case in point! > I'm talking about science. In science there is no problem with > something running slow. Correct. But you dont fully understand the meaning of that expression, to "run slow". For you to declare that an actual device ran slow, you must have performed an observation (a measurement). What you did is that you observed (noted, logged) that it indicated zero, then sometime thereafter, it indicated 1; you only performed two punctual observations. You did not observe it at every picosecond. The device "beeped" as it indicated "1" and thus it indicated "1". This *then* is called "run slow". > It may be a problem in math, but then math is getting in the way > of YOUR understanding of what is really happening. What "really happened" in between, can never be empirically known unless you actually make the observation in between. > When a clock or object moves, time slows down for that clock or object. How do you know? How would you verify that? > That means it takes LONGER for it to go from 0 to 1. How do you verify that? What you did is compare its value with YOUR clock. As they coincide, it indicated "1" and yours indicated "5". This *then* is colloquially said to "run slow". The facts were ONLY 1 & 5. > If you did not COMPARE it to another clock, you would not NOTICE > that the clock runs slow. EXACTLY!!! Between 0 & 1 (or your watch 0 & 5) you did NOT compare both clocks, so you cant say it ran slow. You only compared then as they indicated 1 & 5. You havent a clue what happened in between since you did not make any observations in between. Maybe God made them to display 1 & 5. All you can conclude is that they displayed 1 & 5. This *then* is colloquially said to "run slow". hey conflict with your beliefs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 09:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <6ec6e8fb-23fb-43a1-836b-312c82a08142@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408109 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:16:07 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:10:48 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > The problem is that you don not understand the meaning of the words. > > > Sorry, but that is just gibberish to me. > > Case in point! > > > I'm talking about science. In science there is no problem with > > something running slow. > > Correct. But you dont fully understand the meaning of that expression, to "run slow". For you to declare that an actual device ran slow, you must have performed an observation (a measurement). What you did is that you observed (noted, logged) that it indicated zero, then sometime thereafter, it indicated 1; you only performed two punctual observations. You did not observe it at every picosecond. The device "beeped" as it indicated "1" and thus it indicated "1". This *then* is called "run slow". > > > It may be a problem in math, but then math is getting in the way > > of YOUR understanding of what is really happening. > > What "really happened" in between, can never be empirically known unless you actually make the observation in between. > > > > When a clock or object moves, time slows down for that clock or object. > > How do you know? How would you verify that? > > > That means it takes LONGER for it to go from 0 to 1. > > How do you verify that? What you did is compare its value with YOUR clock. > As they coincide, it indicated "1" and yours indicated "5". This *then* is colloquially said to "run slow". The facts were ONLY 1 & 5. > > > If you did not COMPARE it to another clock, you would not NOTICE > > that the clock runs slow. > > EXACTLY!!! Between 0 & 1 (or your watch 0 & 5) you did NOT compare both clocks, so you cant say it ran slow. You can't. But I can. LOGICALLY, I understand time dilation and that time runs slow when an object moves or is closer to a gravitational mass. I do not need to make a comparison every picosecond. That is only for mathematicians and quantum mechanics who need to have everything defined as quanta, even time. > You only compared then as they indicated 1 & 5. You havent a clue what happened in between since you did not make any observations in between. Maybe God made them to display 1 & 5. A mathematician may need to cite God, since he cannot EXPLAIN the difference in time. But a scientist can explain that time ran slow do to the effect of time dilation, so he does not need to reference God. Time Dilation is a natural phenomenon. > All you can conclude is that they displayed 1 & 5. This *then* is colloquially said to "run slow". > hey conflict with your beliefs. Colloquially and logically. It may conflict with your beliefs, but that's your problem. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 10:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <9d2bcf60-762e-47a7-a8bd-9cfa0ada4f1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408113 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:58:40 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:16:07 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > EXACTLY!!! Between 0 & 1 (or your watch 0 & 5) you did NOT > > compare both clocks, so you cant say it ran slow. > > You can't. But I can. LOGICALLY, No. Your conclusion of "run slow" does not logically follow. It may be your belief or intuition, but those are not a logical process that led to the conclusion. > I understand time dilation and that time runs slow... You think you do, but you dont. You dont even comprehend the meaning of the expression "run slow". > A mathematician may need to cite God, since he cannot EXPLAIN the > difference in time. There is no need for an "explanation". The formulas (LT's, say) give the correct results; it makes correct predictions of past and future exp's (this is how scientist got to build all these little nifty things that work!) > But a scientist can explain that time ran slow do to the effect > of time dilation, No....he does not explain; he simply repeats, with different words. The observation of t' < t can be voiced as t'<t. Some **THEN** call this "time dilation" or "run slow". These are not *explanations*, but just a repeat, a rewording of t' < t. > Time Dilation is a natural phenomenon. Yes, t'<t is an experimental fact. That is what you meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 13:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <a65f17ba-bae6-4430-b8c6-5f35c607cdcb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408115 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:58:40 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:16:07 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > EXACTLY!!! Between 0 & 1 (or your watch 0 & 5) you did NOT > > > compare both clocks, so you cant say it ran slow. > > > > You can't. But I can. LOGICALLY, > > No. Your conclusion of "run slow" does not logically follow. It may be your belief or intuition, but those are not a logical process that led to the conclusion. > > > I understand time dilation and that time runs slow... > > You think you do, but you dont. You dont even comprehend the meaning of the expression "run slow". > > > A mathematician may need to cite God, since he cannot EXPLAIN the > > difference in time. > > There is no need for an "explanation". The formulas (LT's, say) give the correct results; it makes correct predictions of past and future exp's (this is how scientist got to build all these little nifty things that work!) > > > But a scientist can explain that time ran slow do to the effect > > of time dilation, > > No....he does not explain; he simply repeats, with different words. > The observation of t' < t can be voiced as t'<t. Some **THEN** call this "time dilation" or "run slow". These are not *explanations*, but just a repeat, a rewording of t' < t. > > > > Time Dilation is a natural phenomenon. > > Yes, t'<t is an experimental fact. That is what you meant. I think I'm beginning to understand your arguments. You only understand the mathematics, so you cannot explain anything except the mathematics in mathematical terms. You have NO CLUE as to what is really going on. Mathematics represent only those factors which can be expressed in mathematical form, and you have to DISTORT reality to make the math work for time dilation. It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. In Einstein's theory (AND IN REALITY), time is CONTINUOUS. In Quantum Mechanics, time must be broken down into (non-existent, hypothetical) "quanta." That is why you cannot comprehend something that is continuous, like time slowing down. It's all VERY interesting. I'm saving this discussion. It might make a good book someday about how mathematicians THINK when they discuss physics with someone who is not a mathematician. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 23:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o7armh$1ctt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408142 |
Le 06/02/2017 à 22:56, Ed Lake a écrit : ... > I think I'm beginning to understand your arguments. You only understand the mathematics, > so you cannot explain anything except the mathematics in mathematical terms. You have NO > CLUE as to what is really going on. > > Mathematics represent only those factors which can be expressed in mathematical form, and > you have to DISTORT reality to make the math work for time dilation. > > It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. In Einstein's theory (AND IN > REALITY), time is CONTINUOUS. In Quantum Mechanics, time must be broken down into (non-existent, > hypothetical) "quanta." That is why you cannot comprehend something that is continuous, > like time slowing down. > > It's all VERY interesting. I'm saving this discussion. It might make a good book someday > about how mathematicians THINK when they discuss physics with someone who is not a mathematician. Mr Lake, your level of confusion on this issues is properly amazing. Nothing you wrote makes any sense concerning Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. You are only making a fool of yourself...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 16:49 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o7aui4$1gv1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408142 |
On 2/6/2017 3:56 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. In Einstein's theory (AND IN REALITY), time is > CONTINUOUS. In Quantum Mechanics, time must be broken down into (non-existent, hypothetical) "quanta." Excuse me? Where did you get that nugget from? > That is why you cannot comprehend something that is continuous, like time slowing down. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 07:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <657a62c0-be65-4e4a-9460-3ab950bebff4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408156 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/6/2017 3:56 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. In Einstein's theory (AND IN REALITY), time is > > CONTINUOUS. In Quantum Mechanics, time must be broken down into (non-existent, hypothetical) "quanta." > > Excuse me? Where did you get that nugget from? What nugget? Mathematicians are considering using a "chronon" as a quanta of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon "Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality." Source: http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/will-quantum-mechanics-swallow-relativity Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 08:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <6d568e16-2488-4a32-95c1-25e53481464b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408237 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 8:07:10 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. In > > > Einstein's theory (AND IN REALITY), time is CONTINUOUS. In Quantum > > > Mechanics, time must be broken down into (non-existent, > > > hypothetical) "quanta." It MAY be. That would imply some maximum frequency (i.e., some maximum energy per quantum. But we presently have no evidence for that. > "Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories > that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific > terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of > reality." > Source: http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/will-quantum-mechanics-swallow-relativity > > Ed Most physicists believe that QM will be the ultimate victor, but Lee Smolin disagrees. He is quite a queer duck, though. His "principle of precedence" presumes something that will surely cannot be true. And some physicists have shown that GR is emergent from QM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zcBKoFrME http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/683448
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 08:57 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <ce3586fb-3b00-4fe8-a3fe-3ccb361ca892@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408243 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 10:32:57 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 8:07:10 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. In > > > > Einstein's theory (AND IN REALITY), time is CONTINUOUS. In Quantum > > > > Mechanics, time must be broken down into (non-existent, > > > > hypothetical) "quanta." > > It MAY be. That would imply some maximum frequency (i.e., some maximum > energy per quantum. But we presently have no evidence for that. > > > "Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories > > that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific > > terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of > > reality." > > Source: http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/will-quantum-mechanics-swallow-relativity > > > > Ed > > Most physicists believe that QM will be the ultimate victor, but Lee Smolin > disagrees. He is quite a queer duck, though. His "principle of precedence" > presumes something that will surely cannot be true. > > And some physicists have shown that GR is emergent from QM: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zcBKoFrME > > http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/683448 I've read a lot of stuff by Lee Smolin. We seem to agree about a lot of things. I have comments about what I read on my web site. On March 1, 2016 I commented on this article: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/pullin/sciam.pdf I reviewed a couple of his books on October 30, 2016. Somewhere, though, I recall that he argued or stated something I TOTALLY disagreed with, and I stopped paying attention to him after that. I think that both sides need to really understand time dilation. Time Dilation seems to be the dividing line. And, if you really understand time dilation, I think it will become clear that Quantum Mechanics is just a useful tool, it cannot accurately describe the universe. If you understand time dilation, you see that there are endless misconceptions about relativity that were created and fostered by quantum mathematicians. But, that's just my opinion. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 11:19 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o7cvii$fku$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408237 |
On 2/7/2017 9:07 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/6/2017 3:56 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. In Einstein's theory (AND IN REALITY), time is >>> CONTINUOUS. In Quantum Mechanics, time must be broken down into (non-existent, hypothetical) "quanta." >> >> Excuse me? Where did you get that nugget from? > > What nugget? Mathematicians are > considering using a "chronon" as a quanta of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon CONSIDERING. That is not incorporated into quantum mechanics by any stretch, and it is certainly an inaccurate statement to say that quantum mechanical treatments NECESSARILY involve quanta of time. Quantum mechanics does NOT insist on that. > > "Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. > It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions > of reality." Source: http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/will-quantum-mechanics-swallow-relativity Note this does not say that quanta of time are essential to quantum mechanics. That was your OWN invention. And again, you arrived at that conclusion through popularization articles. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 15:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <ac124fe2-135d-4a6f-be53-88e8182338a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408142 |
Ed Lake gibbered I think I'm beginning to understand your arguments. You only understand the mathematics, so you cannot explain anything except the mathematics in mathematical terms. You have NO CLUE as to what is really going on. Mathematics represent only those factors which can be expressed in mathematical form, and you have to DISTORT reality to make the math work for time dilation. It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. In Einstein's theory (AND IN REALITY), time is CONTINUOUS. In Quantum Mechanics, time must be broken down into (non-existent, hypothetical) "quanta." That is why you cannot comprehend something that is continuous, like time slowing down. It's all VERY interesting. I'm saving this discussion. It might make a good book someday about how mathematicians THINK when they discuss physics with someone who is not a mathematician. Ed Wow.... you are just a massive Moron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 19:39 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <9ca5c1cc-28c8-4298-813c-79020c0b6e82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408142 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:56:57 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > I think I'm beginning to understand your arguments. You think wrong. You dont understand at all our arguments, and worse, you still dont understand the meaning of the expressions used in physics. > so you cannot explain anything except the mathematics There is nothing to "explain". This is why you cant explain it neither. You claim that you can explain time dilation, but you havent explained it. You simply repeated "it runs slow thus time dilation is explained". Well, that is not an explanation, but just a repeat of the result of empirics. > It boils down to Einstein's theory versus Quantum Mechanics. ??? Totally irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about the meaning of the expression "run slow". This has nothing to do if time is discrete or not. > It's all VERY interesting. I'm saving this discussion. > It might make a good book someday about how mathematicians THINK > when they discuss physics Mathematicians dont discuss the meaning of the words used in physics, nor its philosophies, nor its empirical results. Mathematicians just play with equations. The interpretations are left to physicist & philosophers. > with someone who is not a mathematician. Indeed, you are far from being a mathematician. You fail at the simplest tasks of logic. I wonder how you would fair at a simple highschool math problem. If you are math limited, you are in no position to discuss physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 13:33 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o7aj16$u2d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408113 |
On 2/6/2017 11:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > Colloquially and logically. It may conflict with your beliefs, but that's your problem. Colloquially yes. Logically no. You'll find out, Ed, that time dilation is not the result of clocks running slow. It is the result of the relativity of synchronization of clocks. You're jumping too far ahead, too fast. You've skipped some essential steps. Before you can deal with the twin puzzle or GPS or Hafele-Keating, you need to learn where time dilation comes from in the simpler case of two pairs of clocks passing each other. This is why Einstein in his popularization chose an example of two lightning strikes and a train on a track. Start there first. This will help correct your "logical" misunderstanding that it has to do with slow-down of clocks. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 14:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <11bee832-ec75-433b-a1a5-2602d8e51d07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408125 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:32:59 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/6/2017 11:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Colloquially and logically. It may conflict with your beliefs, but that's your problem. > > Colloquially yes. Logically no. > > You'll find out, Ed, that time dilation is not the result of clocks > running slow. It is the result of the relativity of synchronization of > clocks. Where do you get this CRAP from? Who said that time dilation is the RESULT of clocks running slow? Do you just MAKE THIS STUFF UP to be annoying? And what the f..k does "result of the relativity of synchronization of clocks" mean? It's just meaningless gibberish. (Yes, I know you cannot explain it any better because you do not understand it yourself.) > > You're jumping too far ahead, too fast. You've skipped some essential steps. > > Before you can deal with the twin puzzle or GPS or Hafele-Keating, you > need to learn where time dilation comes from in the simpler case of two > pairs of clocks passing each other. This is why Einstein in his > popularization chose an example of two lightning strikes and a train on > a track. Start there first. This will help correct your "logical" > misunderstanding that it has to do with slow-down of clocks. NO! If you start with two pairs of clocks passing each other, YOU LEARN NOTHING ABOUT TIME DILATION. You ONLY learn about RELATIVITY. And the lesson will be an BAD lesson that will cause ENDLESS misunderstandings. Einstein's train examples were also about RELATIVITY, not about time dilation, and resulted in a hundred years of misunderstandings. The real, natural phenomenon of time dilation CAUSES the relativity issues. If all you do is study relativity issues and examples, YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND TIME DILATION. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Jeeze. NINE messages from Odd Bodkin expressing his OPINIONS. A couple days ago it was THIRTEEN in a row. I ignored all of those, and I'm going to ignore the other 8 here, since they are just personal opinions of no concern to me. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 16:59 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o7av52$1i3k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408151 |
On 2/6/2017 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:32:59 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/6/2017 11:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> Colloquially and logically. It may conflict with your beliefs, but that's your problem. >> >> Colloquially yes. Logically no. >> >> You'll find out, Ed, that time dilation is not the result of clocks >> running slow. It is the result of the relativity of synchronization of >> clocks. > > Where do you get this CRAP from? Who said that time dilation is the RESULT of clocks > running slow? Do you just MAKE THIS STUFF UP to be annoying? Let me put it to you differently. Time dilation is not clocks running slow. > > And what the f..k does "result of the relativity of synchronization of clocks" mean? > It's just meaningless gibberish. (Yes, I know you cannot explain it any better because > you do not understand it yourself.) I'm happy to explain it to you, provided you FIRST look at Einstein's paper from 1905 and acknowledge that Einstein said, and relativity continues to say, that a pair of clocks that are synchronized in one reference frame will be found to be not synchronized in any other frame. Here's the soundbite, though I do suggest you reread the whole paper: "Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous." and further... "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system." You earlier stated that, as far as your common sense tells you, any two clocks that are synchronized with each other in one frame must necessarily be synchronized with each other in any frame. You also stated that Einstein said nothing about the synchronization of clocks being different in different frames. Since you clearly have made an error here, at least embrace that correction. THEN I can show you how that is relevant to time dilation and length contraction. > >> >> You're jumping too far ahead, too fast. You've skipped some essential steps. >> >> Before you can deal with the twin puzzle or GPS or Hafele-Keating, you >> need to learn where time dilation comes from in the simpler case of two >> pairs of clocks passing each other. This is why Einstein in his >> popularization chose an example of two lightning strikes and a train on >> a track. Start there first. This will help correct your "logical" >> misunderstanding that it has to do with slow-down of clocks. > > NO! If you start with two pairs of clocks passing each other, YOU LEARN > NOTHING ABOUT TIME DILATION. You ONLY learn about RELATIVITY. And the lesson < will be an BAD lesson that will cause ENDLESS misunderstandings. Then you have not understood what Einstein wrote about it. > > Einstein's train examples were also about RELATIVITY, not about time dilation, > and resulted in a hundred years of misunderstandings. Sorry, but he was setting you up to understand how time dilation comes about. Please CONSIDER the possibility that you have made a mistake early on, and that there may be a need to retract some of your thinking. > > The real, natural phenomenon of time dilation CAUSES the relativity issues. > If all you do is study relativity issues and examples, YOU WILL NEVER > UNDERSTAND TIME DILATION. Sorry, Ed, but it's clear that you did not understand much of what Einstein wrote. > >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Jeeze. NINE messages from Odd Bodkin expressing his OPINIONS. A couple > days ago it was THIRTEEN in a row. I ignored all of those, and I'm going > to ignore the other 8 here, since they are just personal opinions of no > concern to me. Ed, consider the quote from the 1905 paper. These are Einstein's own words. If you think he is WRONG, then come out and say so. If you think he was right, and that his words were later distorted, then at least let's get straight on what he actually said. If at this point you are completely unable to confront having made a mistake because you have too much invested in it, then you will be unable to learn anything. Learning involves recognizing your own mistakes. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 06:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <67024fb3-a8b5-4c00-ab37-c1ef1a0e6d55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408157 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 5:59:50 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/6/2017 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:32:59 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/6/2017 11:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> Colloquially and logically. It may conflict with your beliefs, but that's your problem. > >> > >> Colloquially yes. Logically no. > >> > >> You'll find out, Ed, that time dilation is not the result of clocks > >> running slow. It is the result of the relativity of synchronization of > >> clocks. > > > > Where do you get this CRAP from? Who said that time dilation is the RESULT of clocks > > running slow? Do you just MAKE THIS STUFF UP to be annoying? > > Let me put it to you differently. Time dilation is not clocks running slow. Yes it is....The SRT math says that a second on a moving clock is worth gamma second on the observer's clock. > > > > > And what the f..k does "result of the relativity of synchronization of clocks" mean? > > It's just meaningless gibberish. (Yes, I know you cannot explain it any better because > > you do not understand it yourself.) > > I'm happy to explain it to you, provided you FIRST look at Einstein's > paper from 1905 and acknowledge that Einstein said, and relativity > continues to say, that a pair of clocks that are synchronized in one > reference frame will be found to be not synchronized in any other frame. > Here's the soundbite, though I do suggest you reread the whole paper: > "Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two > clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system > would declare the clocks to be synchronous." > > and further... > > "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the > concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system > of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as > simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion > relatively to that system." > > You earlier stated that, as far as your common sense tells you, any two > clocks that are synchronized with each other in one frame must > necessarily be synchronized with each other in any frame. You also > stated that Einstein said nothing about the synchronization of clocks > being different in different frames. Since you clearly have made an > error here, at least embrace that correction. THEN I can show you how > that is relevant to time dilation and length contraction. > > > > >> > >> You're jumping too far ahead, too fast. You've skipped some essential steps. > >> > >> Before you can deal with the twin puzzle or GPS or Hafele-Keating, you > >> need to learn where time dilation comes from in the simpler case of two > >> pairs of clocks passing each other. This is why Einstein in his > >> popularization chose an example of two lightning strikes and a train on > >> a track. Start there first. This will help correct your "logical" > >> misunderstanding that it has to do with slow-down of clocks. > > > > NO! If you start with two pairs of clocks passing each other, YOU LEARN > > NOTHING ABOUT TIME DILATION. You ONLY learn about RELATIVITY. And the lesson > < will be an BAD lesson that will cause ENDLESS misunderstandings. > > Then you have not understood what Einstein wrote about it. > > > > > Einstein's train examples were also about RELATIVITY, not about time dilation, > > and resulted in a hundred years of misunderstandings. > > Sorry, but he was setting you up to understand how time dilation comes > about. Please CONSIDER the possibility that you have made a mistake > early on, and that there may be a need to retract some of your thinking. > > > > > The real, natural phenomenon of time dilation CAUSES the relativity issues. > > If all you do is study relativity issues and examples, YOU WILL NEVER > > UNDERSTAND TIME DILATION. > > Sorry, Ed, but it's clear that you did not understand much of what > Einstein wrote. > > > > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Jeeze. NINE messages from Odd Bodkin expressing his OPINIONS. A couple > > days ago it was THIRTEEN in a row. I ignored all of those, and I'm going > > to ignore the other 8 here, since they are just personal opinions of no > > concern to me. > > Ed, consider the quote from the 1905 paper. These are Einstein's own > words. If you think he is WRONG, then come out and say so. If you think > he was right, and that his words were later distorted, then at least > let's get straight on what he actually said. > > If at this point you are completely unable to confront having made a > mistake because you have too much invested in it, then you will be > unable to learn anything. Learning involves recognizing your own mistakes. > > > > > Ed > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 11:20 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o7cvkm$fku$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408234 |
On 2/7/2017 8:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 5:59:50 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/6/2017 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:32:59 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/6/2017 11:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> Colloquially and logically. It may conflict with your beliefs, but that's your problem. >>>> >>>> Colloquially yes. Logically no. >>>> >>>> You'll find out, Ed, that time dilation is not the result of clocks >>>> running slow. It is the result of the relativity of synchronization of >>>> clocks. >>> >>> Where do you get this CRAP from? Who said that time dilation is the RESULT of clocks >>> running slow? Do you just MAKE THIS STUFF UP to be annoying? >> >> Let me put it to you differently. Time dilation is not clocks running slow. > > Yes it is....The SRT math says that a second on a moving clock is worth gamma second on the observer's clock. > No, sorry Ken, you have misread the mathematics. This is not unusual for you. You are illiterate with mathematics. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 11:46 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <d912c223-6a9c-478e-973d-37c31779cf76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408251 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 12:20:25 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 8:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 5:59:50 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/6/2017 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:32:59 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/6/2017 11:58 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> Colloquially and logically. It may conflict with your beliefs, but that's your problem. > >>>> > >>>> Colloquially yes. Logically no. > >>>> > >>>> You'll find out, Ed, that time dilation is not the result of clocks > >>>> running slow. It is the result of the relativity of synchronization of > >>>> clocks. > >>> > >>> Where do you get this CRAP from? Who said that time dilation is the RESULT of clocks > >>> running slow? Do you just MAKE THIS STUFF UP to be annoying? > >> > >> Let me put it to you differently. Time dilation is not clocks running slow. > > > > Yes it is....The SRT math says that a second on a moving clock is worth gamma second on the observer's clock. > > > > No, sorry Ken, you have misread the mathematics. > This is not unusual for you. You are illiterate with mathematics. Nope I have not misread the math. The LT says: Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 20:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians |
| Message-ID | <o7d937$11ml$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408264 |
kenseto wrote: >> > Yes it is....The SRT math says that a second on a moving clock is >> > worth gamma second on the observer's clock. >> > >> No, sorry Ken, you have misread the mathematics. >> This is not unusual for you. You are illiterate with mathematics. > > Nope I have not misread the math. The LT says: Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t) This is just another thing, which is correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web