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 10 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 32 Next page →
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 10:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <a5a2ab22-2f35-497d-9087-d5d9cc8b827c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408252 |
Ed Lake gibbered I took Brian Greene's course on "Time and Einstein" sometime in 2014. I thought it was TOTAL CRAP. Back in August of 2016 I put a comment about it on my blog: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/08/physics-teachers-are-teaching.html It was one of the factors that got me to thinking about getting a scientific paper published to show how wrong college professors like Greene are. Ed Giant Stupid Imbecile Ed Read a couple physics Text books
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 17:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589a5032$0$61807$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408254 |
On 2/7/2017 1:12 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Ed Lake gibbered > > I took Brian Greene's course on "Time and Einstein" sometime in 2014. I thought it was TOTAL CRAP. Back in August of 2016 I put a comment about it on my blog: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/08/physics-teachers-are-teaching.html > > It was one of the factors that got me to thinking about getting a scientific paper published to show how wrong college professors like Greene are. > > Ed > > Giant Stupid Imbecile Ed > > Read a couple physics Text books > He should not read texts. That is just asking the atheist to read the bible to "prove" your point of view. He needs to read books that QUESTION authority.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 12:28 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7d3la$nto$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408252 |
On 2/7/2017 11:29 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Why do you twists and distort everything???!! I am certainly NOT "lamenting" about > information on the web. YOU ARE. I'm not lamenting it. I'm saying it's of dubious quality for education, but unlike you, I don't call that lying. I don't have to demonize that content to know there is better material to learn from. > > My choice? Maybe I'll read a book on the web just to see how you react to that. I'm > currently reading a science book on my Kindle during breakfast and lunch, and I'm listening > to another on the CD player in my car as I drive from place to place. \ Fine. What are the books? I know four books have been recommended to you recently on this group for the study of special relativity. You say you have many books about relativity and I asked you what they are, and you declined to answer. Any particular reason you don't want to share the book references you're reading? > > Complaining about the source of reading material is the same as arguing that the person with > the best credentials is the one who is right. It's NONSENSE. It's away of avoiding any > intelligent discussion. The only intelligent discussions are also INFORMED discussions, involving people who have learned the basics. And yes, this means being familiar with (aka reading) carefully written instructional material from the people who are well respected in their fields. That is how the human race advances its collective knowledge. What problem do you have with that? > > I took Brian Greene's course on "Time and Einstein" sometime in 2014. I thought it was > TOTAL CRAP. Back in August of 2016 I put a comment about it on my > blog: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/08/physics-teachers-are-teaching.html Let me be clear about something. When you take an online course like this, you are not doing the same thing as taking a college course. The reason is that you cannot ask any questions in the online course. All you can say is, "I don't think that's right" or "I don't understand how what you say could be possible" and then you dismiss the course as useless. Compare this to a class where you can raise your hand and say these same things and have the professor approach the explanation a different way or to convince you that a claim you disbelieve is in fact true. This is why I suggest that you actually learn by taking a course. > > It was one of the factors that got me to thinking about getting a scientific paper > published to show how wrong college professors like Greene are. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 13:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <ea9b0047-9aea-4819-a72e-da06d983efa5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408256 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 12:29:01 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 11:29 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > Why do you twists and distort everything???!! I am certainly NOT "lamenting" about > > information on the web. YOU ARE. > > I'm not lamenting it. I'm saying it's of dubious quality for education, > but unlike you, I don't call that lying. > > I don't have to demonize that content to know there is better material > to learn from. > > > > > My choice? Maybe I'll read a book on the web just to see how you react to that. I'm > > currently reading a science book on my Kindle during breakfast and lunch, and I'm listening > > to another on the CD player in my car as I drive from place to place. \ > > Fine. What are the books? You can see what books I read by viewing my web site. Every time I finish a book, I put a picture of the cover on my site and write a brief comment about it. Right now, during breakfast and lunch, I'm reading "The Upright Thinkers" by Leonard Mlodinow. I'd listened to it on CDs in my car in December, but you can't make notes or copy things that way, so I'm now reading it on my Kindle and saving passages worth remembering. In my car, I'm listening to "Seven Brief Lessons on Physics" by Carlo Rovelli. The book is only 88 pages long, and the CD version is less than 2 hours on 2 CDs. But it's very interesting. While returning home from the gym about a half hour ago, there was a lot of great stuff about time. I'll have to play it again from the MP3 versions I have and transcribe some of the stuff for a comment on my web site. The next book in the queue for my car's CD player is "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari. Then it will either be "Area 51" or "That's Not in My American History Book." > I know four books have been recommended to you recently on this group > for the study of special relativity. > You say you have many books about relativity and I asked you what they > are, and you declined to answer. Any particular reason you don't want to > share the book references you're reading? I don't recall saying I had "many books about relativity." That seems like something else you twisted and distorted. All I recall saying is that "I have a library of scientific books." I don't feel like typing a list of them all, but I see I have four of Richard Feynman's books on the bookshelves behind me, and a copy of "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking. I see "Times Arrows" by Ricard Morris, several books by Timothy Ferris, several by Carl Sagan, etc., etc. Back in June I produced a directory list of books on my Kindle. I can copy and paste those. Here are some of them: Albert Einstein & Relativity Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics Edge of Physics, The Fabric of the Cosmos, The 4 Percent Universe, The: Dark Matter, Dark Energy From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Grand Design, The Hidden Reality, The: Parallel Universes and the Information, The: A History, A Theory, A Flood Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book Moonwalking with Einstein Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Stuff Matters: Exploring the Marvelous Materials that Shape our World Thinking, Fast and Slow X-Events: The Collapse of Everything > > > > > Complaining about the source of reading material is the same as arguing that the person with > > the best credentials is the one who is right. It's NONSENSE. It's away of avoiding any > > intelligent discussion. > > The only intelligent discussions are also INFORMED discussions, > involving people who have learned the basics. And yes, this means being > familiar with (aka reading) carefully written instructional material > from the people who are well respected in their fields. > > That is how the human race advances its collective knowledge. What > problem do you have with that? > The problem I have with that is that you keep arguing that unless I read what you read and believe what you believe, I am ignorant. > > > > > I took Brian Greene's course on "Time and Einstein" sometime in 2014. I thought it was > > TOTAL CRAP. Back in August of 2016 I put a comment about it on my > > blog: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/08/physics-teachers-are-teaching.html > > Let me be clear about something. When you take an online course like > this, you are not doing the same thing as taking a college course. The > reason is that you cannot ask any questions in the online course. All > you can say is, "I don't think that's right" or "I don't understand how > what you say could be possible" and then you dismiss the course as > useless. Compare this to a class where you can raise your hand and say > these same things and have the professor approach the explanation a > different way or to convince you that a claim you disbelieve is in fact > true. > > This is why I suggest that you actually learn by taking a course. > I took the on-line course because it was free and I could fit it into my schedule wherever I wanted. Taking an actual school course means waiting until September, and if I disagree with the professor, I get a failing grade. He's not going to change his course to fit what I tell him. And you just ASSUME he's going to be able to explain things to cause me to see that he is right. I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who appears to teach at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. What he is saying about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity is CRAP. He explains that a lot of people disagree with him, but he's teaching it anyway. Apparently because it is part of the prescribed course. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BlfD2sDoQ Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 16:20 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7dh7f$1gkh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408277 |
On 2/7/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I took Brian Greene's course on "Time and Einstein" sometime in 2014. I thought it was >>> TOTAL CRAP. Back in August of 2016 I put a comment about it on my >>> blog: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/08/physics-teachers-are-teaching.html >> >> Let me be clear about something. When you take an online course like >> this, you are not doing the same thing as taking a college course. The >> reason is that you cannot ask any questions in the online course. All >> you can say is, "I don't think that's right" or "I don't understand how >> what you say could be possible" and then you dismiss the course as >> useless. Compare this to a class where you can raise your hand and say >> these same things and have the professor approach the explanation a >> different way or to convince you that a claim you disbelieve is in fact >> true. >> >> This is why I suggest that you actually learn by taking a course. >> > > I took the on-line course because it was free and I could fit it into my schedule wherever I wanted. > Taking an actual school course means waiting until September, and if I disagree with the professor, > I get a failing grade. He's not going to change his course to fit what I tell him. And you just > ASSUME he's going to be able to explain things to cause me to see that he is right. This smells of a weak excuse. You sound like you are avoiding interactions with a human being who would be in a position to teach you something. You do not like being put in that position? You're afraid of being judged? You don't want to sit in a position of pupil and insist on being put on a peer-to-peer basis so that your ideas get as much air time as what he's teaching you? My experience is that teachers LOVE students who ask a lot of questions, not the ones who just nod and say nothing. They do not FLUNK students for asking questions. And yes, they do take questions as useful cues to know that they have not explained something well, and so they take a different approach to explain the same thing. Do not doom your instructor to failure in convincing you ahead of time. That accomplishes nothing. > > I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who appears to teach at Loyola > Marymount University in Los Angeles. What he is saying about Einstein's Second Postulate to his > Special Theory of Relativity is CRAP. He explains that a lot of people disagree with him, but > he's teaching it anyway. Apparently because it is part of the prescribed course. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BlfD2sDoQ Again, notice that you did not have any opportunity to ask van Biezen your questions. You just call it CRAP and dismiss it. I saw nothing in that video that was wrong, and he didn't say anything that other people would disagree with in that 4 minute video. What did you find wrong with it? Quote the statement you found either in conflict with fact or is confusing to you? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 16:38 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7di9e$1i99$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408284 |
On 2/7/2017 4:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who >> appears to teach at Loyola >> Marymount University in Los Angeles. What he is saying about >> Einstein's Second Postulate to his >> Special Theory of Relativity is CRAP. He explains that a lot of >> people disagree with him, but >> he's teaching it anyway. Apparently because it is part of the >> prescribed course. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BlfD2sDoQ > > Again, notice that you did not have any opportunity to ask van Biezen > your questions. You just call it CRAP and dismiss it. I saw nothing in > that video that was wrong, and he didn't say anything that other people > would disagree with in that 4 minute video. What did you find wrong with > it? Quote the statement you found either in conflict with fact or is > confusing to you? > I stumbled on your web page account of what you heard from van Biezen that you took exception to. You state: "But then Prof. van Biezen goes on to tell his students that Observer-B will not see the light coming toward him at 186,000 miles per second plus the speed of Observer-B's space ship. Somehow, magically, the light will slow down so that Observer-B will see the light coming at him at only 186,000 miles per second. Prof. van Biezen doesn't explain why or how this happens, he just explains that that is how he interprets what Einstein wrote and therefore it must be true." So you reject his statement, you say you disagree with it, but the basis of your disagreement is that you cannot see how this is possible, and so it must be wrong! Furthermore, you insist that because he did not explain (in this four minutes) how it IS possible, then this is further evidence that it is wrong. But what van Biezen did not tell you is that, regardless of how magical this seems, and how much it defies your intuition, this is an EXPERIMENTAL FACT. That is, it has been TESTED in the laboratory that there is a laboratory approaching a source of light at a high velocity, and the speed of light is in fact NOT different than 186,000 mps but is in fact only 186,000 mps. So what Einstein said is in fact in agreement with experimental observation REGARDLESS whether you understand how this is possible or not. This is where your mind separates from that of a physicist. A physicist will say, "If my understanding tells me that X will happen, and I run a measurement and measurement shows that Y instead happens, then it is my understanding that predicted X that is WRONG." You instead take the approach, "Unless someone can explain to me how Y happens, then I refuse to believe that Y actually happened. There must have been some kind of mistake, because I can only see how X would happen." The lesson here is this. First, accept the primacy of experiment, even if the result is astounding and (at the moment) unexplainable. Accept that it is a True Fact. THEN, see if there is a way to explain how it is possible that such a thing happens. Are you willing to start thinking this way? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 16:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7dja8$1j9b$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408289 |
On 2/7/2017 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 4:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>> I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who >>> appears to teach at Loyola >>> Marymount University in Los Angeles. What he is saying about >>> Einstein's Second Postulate to his >>> Special Theory of Relativity is CRAP. He explains that a lot of >>> people disagree with him, but >>> he's teaching it anyway. Apparently because it is part of the >>> prescribed course. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BlfD2sDoQ >> >> Again, notice that you did not have any opportunity to ask van Biezen >> your questions. You just call it CRAP and dismiss it. I saw nothing in >> that video that was wrong, and he didn't say anything that other people >> would disagree with in that 4 minute video. What did you find wrong with >> it? Quote the statement you found either in conflict with fact or is >> confusing to you? >> > > I stumbled on your web page account of what you heard from van Biezen > that you took exception to. You state: "But then Prof. van Biezen goes > on to tell his students that Observer-B will not see the light coming > toward him at 186,000 miles per second plus the speed of Observer-B's > space ship. Somehow, magically, the light will slow down so that > Observer-B will see the light coming at him at only 186,000 miles per > second. Prof. van Biezen doesn't explain why or how this happens, he > just explains that that is how he interprets what Einstein wrote and > therefore it must be true." > > So you reject his statement, you say you disagree with it, but the basis > of your disagreement is that you cannot see how this is possible, and so > it must be wrong! Furthermore, you insist that because he did not > explain (in this four minutes) how it IS possible, then this is further > evidence that it is wrong. > > But what van Biezen did not tell you is that, regardless of how magical > this seems, and how much it defies your intuition, this is an > EXPERIMENTAL FACT. That is, it has been TESTED in the laboratory that > there is a laboratory approaching a source of light at a high velocity, > and the speed of light is in fact NOT different than 186,000 mps but is > in fact only 186,000 mps. So what Einstein said is in fact in agreement > with experimental observation REGARDLESS whether you understand how this > is possible or not. > > This is where your mind separates from that of a physicist. A physicist > will say, "If my understanding tells me that X will happen, and I run a > measurement and measurement shows that Y instead happens, then it is my > understanding that predicted X that is WRONG." You instead take the > approach, "Unless someone can explain to me how Y happens, then I refuse > to believe that Y actually happened. There must have been some kind of > mistake, because I can only see how X would happen." > > The lesson here is this. First, accept the primacy of experiment, even > if the result is astounding and (at the moment) unexplainable. Accept > that it is a True Fact. THEN, see if there is a way to explain how it is > possible that such a thing happens. > > Are you willing to start thinking this way? > Furthermore you make another mistake when you claim that Einstein's relativity DOES NOT SAY that an observer's motion will not affect the speed of the light coming into the observer. You claim that only the motion of the source is discussed by Einstein. Apparently you have not read much by Einstein. I suggest you read the first four or five chapters of this book: http://www.bartleby.com/173/ -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 07:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <0909c8c7-a4cc-4ab2-9513-9e073a60d880@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408295 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:56:12 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 2/7/2017 4:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > >>> I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who > >>> appears to teach at Loyola > >>> Marymount University in Los Angeles. What he is saying about > >>> Einstein's Second Postulate to his > >>> Special Theory of Relativity is CRAP. He explains that a lot of > >>> people disagree with him, but > >>> he's teaching it anyway. Apparently because it is part of the > >>> prescribed course. > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BlfD2sDoQ > >> > >> Again, notice that you did not have any opportunity to ask van Biezen > >> your questions. You just call it CRAP and dismiss it. I saw nothing in > >> that video that was wrong, and he didn't say anything that other people > >> would disagree with in that 4 minute video. What did you find wrong with > >> it? Quote the statement you found either in conflict with fact or is > >> confusing to you? > >> > > > > I stumbled on your web page account of what you heard from van Biezen > > that you took exception to. You state: "But then Prof. van Biezen goes > > on to tell his students that Observer-B will not see the light coming > > toward him at 186,000 miles per second plus the speed of Observer-B's > > space ship. Somehow, magically, the light will slow down so that > > Observer-B will see the light coming at him at only 186,000 miles per > > second. Prof. van Biezen doesn't explain why or how this happens, he > > just explains that that is how he interprets what Einstein wrote and > > therefore it must be true." > > > > So you reject his statement, you say you disagree with it, but the basis > > of your disagreement is that you cannot see how this is possible, and so > > it must be wrong! Furthermore, you insist that because he did not > > explain (in this four minutes) how it IS possible, then this is further > > evidence that it is wrong. > > > > But what van Biezen did not tell you is that, regardless of how magical > > this seems, and how much it defies your intuition, this is an > > EXPERIMENTAL FACT. That is, it has been TESTED in the laboratory that > > there is a laboratory approaching a source of light at a high velocity, > > and the speed of light is in fact NOT different than 186,000 mps but is > > in fact only 186,000 mps. So what Einstein said is in fact in agreement > > with experimental observation REGARDLESS whether you understand how this > > is possible or not. > > > > This is where your mind separates from that of a physicist. A physicist > > will say, "If my understanding tells me that X will happen, and I run a > > measurement and measurement shows that Y instead happens, then it is my > > understanding that predicted X that is WRONG." You instead take the > > approach, "Unless someone can explain to me how Y happens, then I refuse > > to believe that Y actually happened. There must have been some kind of > > mistake, because I can only see how X would happen." > > > > The lesson here is this. First, accept the primacy of experiment, even > > if the result is astounding and (at the moment) unexplainable. Accept > > that it is a True Fact. THEN, see if there is a way to explain how it is > > possible that such a thing happens. > > > > Are you willing to start thinking this way? > > > > Furthermore you make another mistake when you claim that Einstein's > relativity DOES NOT SAY that an observer's motion will not affect the > speed of the light coming into the observer. You claim that only the > motion of the source is discussed by Einstein. > > Apparently you have not read much by Einstein. I suggest you read the > first four or five chapters of this book: http://www.bartleby.com/173/ If you BELIEVE those chapters say something relevant, QUOTE THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS. I do not have the time to HUNT for things you should have provided. Besides, MY POINT is that there are many books that are WRONG. Here is what EINSTEIN wrote: "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." I'll repeat the important section for you: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body." He says NOTHING any outside observer. I see that Postulate translated all over the place to say something like "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of ANY MOVING BODY." That is CRAP. The evidence shows that it is CRAP. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <b273691c-dd0d-4984-92d9-4f505dfc833f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408395 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > Here is what EINSTEIN wrote: ... > I'll repeat the important section for you: "light is always propagated > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of > the state of motion of the EMITTING body." > > He says NOTHING any outside observer. Correct, since such a specification is not needed since it is deduced from what he just said. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." IMPLIES that independent of the *observer*, it will propagate at speed c (meaning, measured as). In fact, E did not even need to specify "which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body." since this too follows form "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." Once again, you seem to misunderstand what you read. And here its clear and the logical implication is trivial. The above sentence IMPLIES that the SoL will be c for all observers. > The evidence shows that it is CRAP. Are you denying empirical facts? ALL measurements of the speed of light, by any observer, has always given c. Hey, you can even test it yourself; the apparatus doenst cost that much, and you can rent nano/pico second clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <8b4eb91e-4876-400d-a567-942af1faaafd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408399 |
W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 17:12:03 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > Are you denying empirical facts? > ALL measurements of the speed of light, by any observer, has always given c. That's very strange, you know. Most of them were made in air, and in gravitational field. For both reason they shouldn't give c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <276d5df6-7132-444c-851d-b42c01e62dbf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408399 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > Here is what EINSTEIN wrote: > ... > > I'll repeat the important section for you: "light is always propagated > > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of > > the state of motion of the EMITTING body." > > > > He says NOTHING any outside observer. > > Correct, since such a specification is not needed since it is deduced from what he just said. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." IMPLIES that independent of the *observer*, it will propagate at speed c (meaning, measured as). > > In fact, E did not even need to specify "which is independent of > the state of motion of the EMITTING body." since this too follows form > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." > > Once again, you seem to misunderstand what you read. And here its clear and the logical implication is trivial. The above sentence IMPLIES that the SoL will be c for all observers. > > > > The evidence shows that it is CRAP. > > Are you denying empirical facts? > ALL measurements of the speed of light, by any observer, has always given c. > Hey, you can even test it yourself; the apparatus doenst cost that much, and you can rent nano/pico second clocks. Since you EXPLAIN your MISunderstandings in this post, I'll respond. If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. That doesn't mean that light actually traveled at 1.1c. It just means that equipment used by OBSERVER-1 added his velocity to the velocity of the incoming light due to their converging paths. It is no different than two cars each going 50 mph hitting each other with a COMBINED VELOCITY of 100 mph. This is what EXPERIMENTS show. There are NO experiments which show otherwise. Anyone who builds or buys or rents or borrows equipment to measure the speed of light will be measuring the speed of light EMITTED by the equipment right next to him. There will be NO MOVING OUTSIDE OBSERVER whose speed will added to c. Comprendo? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 16:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7g66e$l60$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408404 |
On 2/8/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, > he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. Blue-shifted means the wavelength has changed, NOT the speed. In fact, real life measurements have shown that blue-shifted light and red-shifted light arrive AT THE SAME TIME, which means that they do not have different speeds. So whatever preconception you have about observers measuring the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c, drop it. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <650871ae-304b-4269-941c-a6b1b701141e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408463 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:30:43 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/8/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, > > he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. > > Blue-shifted means the wavelength has changed, NOT the speed. > In fact, real life measurements have shown that blue-shifted light and > red-shifted light arrive AT THE SAME TIME, which means that they do not > have different speeds. > > So whatever preconception you have about observers measuring the > incoming light as arriving at 1.1c, drop it. Is that an ORDER? I know what blue-shifting and red-shifting are. What you apparently do not realize is that light will APPEAR blue-shifted if the light arrives faster than the "calibrated speed of light" used by your measuring equipment. It's just like sound waves being closer together when the come from a whistle on an approaching train. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7i2cg$1fk4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408600 |
On 2/9/2017 9:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:30:43 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/8/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, >>> he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. >> >> Blue-shifted means the wavelength has changed, NOT the speed. >> In fact, real life measurements have shown that blue-shifted light and >> red-shifted light arrive AT THE SAME TIME, which means that they do not >> have different speeds. >> >> So whatever preconception you have about observers measuring the >> incoming light as arriving at 1.1c, drop it. > > Is that an ORDER? Heck no. You have the perfect right to be foolish. > > I know what blue-shifting and red-shifting are. What you apparently do not realize is that light > will APPEAR blue-shifted if the light arrives faster than the "calibrated speed of light" used > by your measuring equipment. It's just like sound waves being closer together when the come > from a whistle on an approaching train. Well, except in your example of the train, the speed of sound in air does not get added to the speed of the train. The speed of the signal is unaffected though the frequency is. And in the case of blue-shifted light, you apparently missed the experimental result that the actual speed was directly MEASURED, not just "interpreted" from the frequency shift, and it was found to not be anything but c. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 08:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <af95c007-a079-4882-98ba-391edd0de198@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408605 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:37:55 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 9:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:30:43 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/8/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, > >>> he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. > >> > >> Blue-shifted means the wavelength has changed, NOT the speed. > >> In fact, real life measurements have shown that blue-shifted light and > >> red-shifted light arrive AT THE SAME TIME, which means that they do not > >> have different speeds. > >> > >> So whatever preconception you have about observers measuring the > >> incoming light as arriving at 1.1c, drop it. > > > > Is that an ORDER? > > Heck no. You have the perfect right to be foolish. > > > > > I know what blue-shifting and red-shifting are. What you apparently do not realize is that light > > will APPEAR blue-shifted if the light arrives faster than the "calibrated speed of light" used > > by your measuring equipment. It's just like sound waves being closer together when the come > > from a whistle on an approaching train. > > Well, except in your example of the train, the speed of sound in air > does not get added to the speed of the train. The speed of the signal is > unaffected though the frequency is. > > And in the case of blue-shifted light, you apparently missed the > experimental result that the actual speed was directly MEASURED, not > just "interpreted" from the frequency shift, and it was found to not be > anything but c. What experiment actually measured the speed of light coming from some distant object with sufficient accuracy to determine it was traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second? The only way we can precisely measure the speed of light is when we create the light in a lab ourselves. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7kedi$15m0$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408624 |
On 2/9/2017 10:27 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:37:55 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/9/2017 9:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:30:43 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/8/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, >>>>> he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. >>>> >>>> Blue-shifted means the wavelength has changed, NOT the speed. >>>> In fact, real life measurements have shown that blue-shifted light and >>>> red-shifted light arrive AT THE SAME TIME, which means that they do not >>>> have different speeds. >>>> >>>> So whatever preconception you have about observers measuring the >>>> incoming light as arriving at 1.1c, drop it. >>> >>> Is that an ORDER? >> >> Heck no. You have the perfect right to be foolish. >> >>> >>> I know what blue-shifting and red-shifting are. What you apparently do not realize is that light >>> will APPEAR blue-shifted if the light arrives faster than the "calibrated speed of light" used >>> by your measuring equipment. It's just like sound waves being closer together when the come >>> from a whistle on an approaching train. >> >> Well, except in your example of the train, the speed of sound in air >> does not get added to the speed of the train. The speed of the signal is >> unaffected though the frequency is. >> >> And in the case of blue-shifted light, you apparently missed the >> experimental result that the actual speed was directly MEASURED, not >> just "interpreted" from the frequency shift, and it was found to not be >> anything but c. > > What experiment actually measured the speed of light coming from some distant object with sufficient > accuracy to determine it was traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second? The only way we can precisely > measure the speed of light is when we create the light in a lab ourselves. > > Ed > Ed, please, think like a scientist. The question here is, for blue-shifted light, can we tell the difference between whether the incoming speed (relative to the observer) is consistent with c, or consistent with c+v? So for example, if v of the observer is 30,000 m/s, can we tell the difference in the incoming speed measurement between 300,000,000 m/s and 300,030,000 m/s? Notice that you do NOT need to measure to nine-digit precision to get this answer. You only need it to one part in 10,000, or maybe for comfort's sake, one part in 50,000. That has EASILY been done in the experiments that Tom mentioned. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 09:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <33d2b9f7-e539-4e42-8ea7-ef0effa34b2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408721 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:33 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 10:27 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:37:55 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/9/2017 9:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:30:43 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/8/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, > >>>>> he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. > >>>> > >>>> Blue-shifted means the wavelength has changed, NOT the speed. > >>>> In fact, real life measurements have shown that blue-shifted light and > >>>> red-shifted light arrive AT THE SAME TIME, which means that they do not > >>>> have different speeds. > >>>> > >>>> So whatever preconception you have about observers measuring the > >>>> incoming light as arriving at 1.1c, drop it. > >>> > >>> Is that an ORDER? > >> > >> Heck no. You have the perfect right to be foolish. > >> > >>> > >>> I know what blue-shifting and red-shifting are. What you apparently do not realize is that light > >>> will APPEAR blue-shifted if the light arrives faster than the "calibrated speed of light" used > >>> by your measuring equipment. It's just like sound waves being closer together when the come > >>> from a whistle on an approaching train. > >> > >> Well, except in your example of the train, the speed of sound in air > >> does not get added to the speed of the train. The speed of the signal is > >> unaffected though the frequency is. > >> > >> And in the case of blue-shifted light, you apparently missed the > >> experimental result that the actual speed was directly MEASURED, not > >> just "interpreted" from the frequency shift, and it was found to not be > >> anything but c. > > > > What experiment actually measured the speed of light coming from some distant object with sufficient > > accuracy to determine it was traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second? The only way we can precisely > > measure the speed of light is when we create the light in a lab ourselves. > > > > Ed > > > > Ed, please, think like a scientist. The question here is, for > blue-shifted light, can we tell the difference between whether the > incoming speed (relative to the observer) is consistent with c, or > consistent with c+v? > > So for example, if v of the observer is 30,000 m/s, can we tell the > difference in the incoming speed measurement between 300,000,000 m/s and > 300,030,000 m/s? > > Notice that you do NOT need to measure to nine-digit precision to get > this answer. You only need it to one part in 10,000, or maybe for > comfort's sake, one part in 50,000. > > That has EASILY been done in the experiments that Tom mentioned. That has nothing to do with measuring the speed of light from a star. You can tell a difference in blue-shifting or red-shifting, but that doesn't tell you the speed of light. The equipment ASSUMES the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7o09v$175u$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408734 |
On 2/10/2017 11:24 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:33 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/9/2017 10:27 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:37:55 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/9/2017 9:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:30:43 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 2/8/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>> If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, >>>>>>> he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Blue-shifted means the wavelength has changed, NOT the speed. >>>>>> In fact, real life measurements have shown that blue-shifted light and >>>>>> red-shifted light arrive AT THE SAME TIME, which means that they do not >>>>>> have different speeds. >>>>>> >>>>>> So whatever preconception you have about observers measuring the >>>>>> incoming light as arriving at 1.1c, drop it. >>>>> >>>>> Is that an ORDER? >>>> >>>> Heck no. You have the perfect right to be foolish. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I know what blue-shifting and red-shifting are. What you apparently do not realize is that light >>>>> will APPEAR blue-shifted if the light arrives faster than the "calibrated speed of light" used >>>>> by your measuring equipment. It's just like sound waves being closer together when the come >>>>> from a whistle on an approaching train. >>>> >>>> Well, except in your example of the train, the speed of sound in air >>>> does not get added to the speed of the train. The speed of the signal is >>>> unaffected though the frequency is. >>>> >>>> And in the case of blue-shifted light, you apparently missed the >>>> experimental result that the actual speed was directly MEASURED, not >>>> just "interpreted" from the frequency shift, and it was found to not be >>>> anything but c. >>> >>> What experiment actually measured the speed of light coming from some distant object with sufficient >>> accuracy to determine it was traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second? The only way we can precisely >>> measure the speed of light is when we create the light in a lab ourselves. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> Ed, please, think like a scientist. The question here is, for >> blue-shifted light, can we tell the difference between whether the >> incoming speed (relative to the observer) is consistent with c, or >> consistent with c+v? >> >> So for example, if v of the observer is 30,000 m/s, can we tell the >> difference in the incoming speed measurement between 300,000,000 m/s and >> 300,030,000 m/s? >> >> Notice that you do NOT need to measure to nine-digit precision to get >> this answer. You only need it to one part in 10,000, or maybe for >> comfort's sake, one part in 50,000. >> >> That has EASILY been done in the experiments that Tom mentioned. > > That has nothing to do with measuring the speed of light from a star. > You can tell a difference in blue-shifting or red-shifting, but that > doesn't tell you the speed of light. The equipment ASSUMES the speed > of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. No, it doesn't. You can measure the speed of light from distant sources INDEPENDENTLY and with a DIFFERENT APPARATUS than the one used to measure blueshift and redshift. This is what is done. Unless you are going to claim that the light speed actually CHANGES between when you do the frequency shift measurement and when you do the light speed measurement. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 09:21 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <46f60bc1-c98e-4259-b1f7-04caab34f012@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408859 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:39:15 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2017 11:24 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > That has nothing to do with measuring the speed of light from a star. > > You can tell a difference in blue-shifting or red-shifting, but that > > doesn't tell you the speed of light. The equipment ASSUMES the speed > > of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. > > No, it doesn't. You can measure the speed of light from distant sources > INDEPENDENTLY and with a DIFFERENT APPARATUS than the one used to > measure blueshift and redshift. This is what is done. > That is a common BELIEF, but it has nothing to do with reality. There is no equipment that can PRECISELY "measure the speed of light from distant sources." Simply CLAIMING there is doesn't make it true. You need to provide EVIDENCE in the form of REFERENCES where the process is described. And then you need to describe the process instead of providing a junk reference and asking me to find it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:19 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7qjhc$1ace$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408939 |
On 2/12/2017 11:21 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:39:15 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 11:24 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> That has nothing to do with measuring the speed of light from a star. >>> You can tell a difference in blue-shifting or red-shifting, but that >>> doesn't tell you the speed of light. The equipment ASSUMES the speed >>> of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. >> >> No, it doesn't. You can measure the speed of light from distant sources >> INDEPENDENTLY and with a DIFFERENT APPARATUS than the one used to >> measure blueshift and redshift. This is what is done. >> > > That is a common BELIEF, but it has nothing to do with reality. There is no > equipment that can PRECISELY "measure the speed of light from distant sources." The precision that is required is what is sufficient to distinguish c from c+v. One doesn't need 9-digit precision to determine that. THINK, Ed, THINK. > Simply CLAIMING there is doesn't make it true. The papers by the scientists claim it, and they describe the precision of their results and how that is determined. > You need to provide EVIDENCE in the form of REFERENCES where the process is described. I've given you a list of references to papers doing astronomical source work in this area. > And then you need to describe the process instead of providing a junk reference and asking me to find it. They're not junk references. You have to read them, like any other physicist reads them. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web