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 13 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 32 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 07:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <439d94cb-33e1-409f-aa60-2de731bfcca0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408679 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:29:32 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/9/17 2/9/17 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:02:44 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 2/8/17 2/8/17 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the > >>> speed of an oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming > >>> light as arriving at c. > >> > >> You are wrong, when one replaces your "ship" with the earth, and realizes > >> that this is not any sort of "slow down". > >> > >> The annual Doppler effect shows that the wavelength of light from distant > >> astronomical objects varies as the earth orbits the sun, accurately > >> matching the predictions of SR. The same holds for the frequencies of > >> microwave signals from distant objects. Combining the two effects shows > >> that the phase speed of light in vacuum is always c. > >> > > > > I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, > > Then you need to educate yourself. > > > but the Doppler effect just > > shows that either the emitting source or the detecting source is moving or > > both are moving. It says nothing about the actual speed of light. > > But the COMBINATION of the two measurements _DOES_ measure how the phase speed > of light varies, and the result is: no variation. That is, the > wavelength*frequency of such a wave equals its phase speed. The COMBINATION of > the annual Doppler effect measurements shows that the vacuum speed of light is > c, to an accuracy much better than the orbital speed of the earth. > > > There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light that you > > create yourself. > > Not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? > Perhaps I should have said, "There is no way to PRECISELY measure the speed of light except for light that you create yourself." > > Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot > > detect it at two different locations. > > Yes. But a light pulse consists of ZILLIONS of photons. You can measure a > handful of them here, and another handful over there, and deduce the speed of > the pulse from the measurements. You can do this for the pulses of light from a > distant pulsar, and measure it speed here on earth. You can also measure the > wavelength and frequency of a monochromatic light ray and calculate its phase speed. > If you measure "handful of them here, and another handful over there" you have no way to know if they were all emitted at the same time. > > Clocks can be OBSERVED to run slow. > > Not without a SIGNAL from the clock. And the observations you mention are > INCAPABLE of distinguishing an effect on the signal from an effect on the clock. > You ASSUME it is the clock that is affected, because that is how your personal fantasies behave. But your fantasies are based on your personal IGNORANCE, and your fantasies cannot account for ALL of the observed phenomena, or for how this is modeled in SR/GR. The experiments were done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. You seem to be claiming they are INCOMPETENT because they disagree with your beliefs. If you think they are INCOMPETENT, why won't you discuss the Hafele-Keating experiments? Were Hafele and Keating INCOMPETENT, too? > Anyone with two sufficiently precise > atomic clocks can place them one above the other and OBSERVE that the lower > clock RUNS SLOWER that the higher clock. > They are observing SIGNALS from the clocks, and the observation is really due to gravity's effect on the SIGNALS, not the clocks. What is your definition of "SIGNALS"? It sometimes seems like it is a way of saying "the speed of light" without calling it "the speed of light." Either way, you are saying that the NIST doesn't know what it is doing. The facts and evidence say that the observation is really due to gravity's effects on the clocks. The facts and evidence say that time is a property of matter. We do not have any better way of PRECISELY measuring time than with atomic clocks. Experiments with atomic clocks show that when you move them at high velocities or when they are placed closer to a massive source of gravitation, they will RUN SLOWER. The fact that a clock will RUN SLOWER without affecting any other clock or how the rest of the universe works says that time is a property of matter. Time for EVERY OBJECT runs slower when moved at high velocities or when moved closer to a gravitational mass --- just as Albert Einstein stated. In Einstein's 1905 paper he stated on page 11, "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." In other words, time runs more slowly in Los Angeles than in San Francisco because Los Angeles is further south and thus moves faster as the earth spins on its axis. No "SIGNALS" are required to understand that. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 17:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7kql8$1uq5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408727 |
Op 10-feb-2017 om 16:16 schreef Ed Lake: [snip] > In Einstein's 1905 paper he stated on page 11, "Thence we conclude > that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the > poles under otherwise identical conditions." > > In other words, time runs more slowly in Los Angeles than in San > Francisco because Los Angeles is further south and thus moves faster > as the earth spins on its axis. So, the Earth not being a sphere due to rotation, Los Angeles is slightly farther from the centre of the Earth than San Francisco, and the kinematic time dilation is precisely compensated by the gravitational time dilation effect. Both effects can be seen as approximations of the general theory, which Einstein developed after 1915. But that is general relativity, which you cannot possible understand before you understand special relativity, which you cannot possible understand before you understand Galilean relativity, which you cannot possible understand unless you change your entire attitude, which you will NEVER be able to do. You are severely wasting your time here. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 09:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <f5800c3a-8a28-416b-bcb3-865825383eab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408731 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:44:27 AM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 10-feb-2017 om 16:16 schreef Ed Lake: > > [snip] > > > > In Einstein's 1905 paper he stated on page 11, "Thence we conclude > > that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the > > poles under otherwise identical conditions." > > > > In other words, time runs more slowly in Los Angeles than in San > > Francisco because Los Angeles is further south and thus moves faster > > as the earth spins on its axis. > > So, the Earth not being a sphere due to rotation, Los Angeles > is slightly farther from the centre of the Earth than San > Francisco, and the kinematic time dilation is precisely > compensated by the gravitational time dilation effect. > Both effects can be seen as approximations of the general > theory, which Einstein developed after 1915. > But that is general relativity, which you cannot possible > understand before you understand special relativity, which > you cannot possible understand before you understand Galilean > relativity, which you cannot possible understand unless you > change your entire attitude, which you will NEVER be able > to do. > You are severely wasting your time here. > > Dirk Vdm Yes, at the equator the SLOWING of time due to velocity will be negated by the SPEEDING UP of time due to the earth not being a perfect sphere, and thus the surface of the earth at the equator is farther from the center of the earth (i.e. "higher") than the surface of the earth at the north pole. But that is just a spurious argument. The situation WOULD be true if the earth was a perfect sphere, AND even though it is not, you still need to calculate BOTH the velocity and gravitational numbers to get a correct result. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 19:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7l15n$ata$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408735 |
Op 10-feb-2017 om 18:32 schreef Ed Lake: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:44:27 AM UTC-6, Dirk Van de > moortel wrote: >> Op 10-feb-2017 om 16:16 schreef Ed Lake: >> >> [snip] >> >> >>> In Einstein's 1905 paper he stated on page 11, "Thence we >>> conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, >>> by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated >>> at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." >>> >>> In other words, time runs more slowly in Los Angeles than in San >>> Francisco because Los Angeles is further south and thus moves >>> faster as the earth spins on its axis. >> >> So, the Earth not being a sphere due to rotation, Los Angeles is >> slightly farther from the centre of the Earth than San Francisco, >> and the kinematic time dilation is precisely compensated by the >> gravitational time dilation effect. Both effects can be seen as >> approximations of the general theory, which Einstein developed >> after 1915. But that is general relativity, which you cannot >> possible understand before you understand special relativity, >> which you cannot possible understand before you understand >> Galilean relativity, which you cannot possible understand unless >> you change your entire attitude, which you will NEVER be able to >> do. You are severely wasting your time here. >> >> Dirk Vdm > > Yes, at the equator the SLOWING of time due to velocity will be > negated by the SPEEDING UP of time due to the earth not being a > perfect sphere, and thus the surface of the earth at the equator is > farther from the center of the earth (i.e. "higher") than the surface > of the earth at the north pole. > > But that is just a spurious argument.The situation WOULD be true if > the earth was a perfect sphere, AND even though it is not, you still > need to calculate BOTH the velocity and gravitational numbers to get > a correct result. The "situation IS true" AND the Earth is not a perfect sphere. The two effects can be calculated as separate approximations of the "general effect", which can be calculated directly. But for that mathematics -- aka gibberish for you -- is needed. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 16:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7g6iu$lma$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408444 |
On 2/8/2017 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:14:53 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/8/2017 9:33 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> 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. >> >> It is NOT crap. It is fully supported by experimental evidence. What >> happens in real life, as exhibited in experiment, should never be called >> crap, even if it comes as a terrific surprise to your intuition. > > > More of your endless blather arguing that, if I do not do things your way then I'm > doing them wrong. It is a SILLY argument. If you claim to understand a subject where you've not read anything instructive about it, then this is foolish. > > There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the speed of an > oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming light as arriving at c. Nor does it HAVE to slow down. Your PRESUMPTION is that the light surely has to start higher than c and then change to being c, i.e. slow down. But that PRESUMPTION is wrong. You adding the speed of the light and the speed of the observer as a simple sum is empirically WRONG. > That notion is not only WRONG, it is STUPID. The evidence says just the opposite. > I cite the evidence in the paper I'm writing. It is incontrovertible. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <9470cfa3-fe93-44ba-8676-f6fa512b9a57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408465 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:37:23 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/8/2017 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:14:53 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/8/2017 9:33 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > >>> 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. > >> > >> It is NOT crap. It is fully supported by experimental evidence. What > >> happens in real life, as exhibited in experiment, should never be called > >> crap, even if it comes as a terrific surprise to your intuition. > > > > > > More of your endless blather arguing that, if I do not do things your way then I'm > > doing them wrong. It is a SILLY argument. > > If you claim to understand a subject where you've not read anything > instructive about it, then this is foolish. > > > > > There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the speed of an > > oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming light as arriving at c. > > Nor does it HAVE to slow down. Your PRESUMPTION is that the light surely > has to start higher than c and then change to being c, i.e. slow down. > But that PRESUMPTION is wrong. You adding the speed of the light and the > speed of the observer as a simple sum is empirically WRONG. You twist what I say to create an incorrect "presumption." What I'm saying is that light travels at c. Adding that speed to the speed of the oncoming observer DOES NOT ALTER THE SPEED OF LIGHT. The speed of light remains the same. Calculating a converging speed doesn't change either speed. > > > That notion is not only WRONG, it is STUPID. The evidence says just the opposite. Not so. The evidence supports what I say. Your evidence says NOTHING about a converging speed. It is only about the speed of the EMITTER. > > I cite the evidence in the paper I'm writing. It is incontrovertible. > > > > Ed Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7qj94$1ace$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408602 |
On 2/9/2017 9:29 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > Not so. The evidence supports what I say. Your evidence says NOTHING about a converging speed. It is only about the speed of the EMITTER. Not so. The "evidence" you are referring to is ONE paper by Einstein, which you have not even read in its entirety. If you want to gather more evidence by reading more, that is up to you. Do not conflate the meager evidence YOU have consumed with being the only evidence there IS. Note that you have been provided pointers to additional evidence. Your response has been to say that you have no time to research those sources yourself, and you want the actual sentences extracted and consolidated for you. Bullshit. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 18:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589a5ecb$0$61829$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408289 |
On 2/7/2017 5:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 4:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. Wait a minute, Boinker. Ed just ripped a page out of your and HVAC's playbook! The way you BOTH do science is to say that if you don't see how something is possible then clearly it is impossible and the person reporting it is lying unless they have the authority of the establishment. Luckily textbooks are virtually always approved so they really tell you what is science and what is to simply be ignored as impossible kook stuff. > 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. The lesson as we both know is that any experiment that shows something unexplainable (ESP, Ghosts, remote viewing etc.) is simply to be dismissed as insane and not even read. If you read the claims some kook makes then you are lending credibility to the kook. So much better to simply call the author insane without having read any of it. That drives your viewpoint home. Tried and true, Boinker. Keep at it. > Are you willing to start thinking this way? Are you willing to keep rejecting anything not official approved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:48 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7fb40$1111$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408308 |
On 2/7/2017 5:56 PM, benj wrote: > > Wait a minute, Boinker. Ed just ripped a page out of your and HVAC's > playbook! The way you BOTH do science is to say that if you don't see > how something is possible then clearly it is impossible and the person > reporting it is lying unless they have the authority of the establishment. Shut up, Ben. I've never said anything like this. Deliberate provocation by outright lie is a pitiable character trait. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 17:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589b9fc8$0$61705$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408387 |
On 2/8/2017 9:48 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 5:56 PM, benj wrote: >> >> Wait a minute, Boinker. Ed just ripped a page out of your and HVAC's >> playbook! The way you BOTH do science is to say that if you don't see >> how something is possible then clearly it is impossible and the person >> reporting it is lying unless they have the authority of the >> establishment. > > Shut up, Ben. I've never said anything like this. > Deliberate provocation by outright lie is a pitiable character trait. > Outright lies on the internet? Say it ain't so Odd, say it ain't so. It's so convenient to call a statement a lie that you are convinced you never do (though record of it is right here on the internet), isn't it? That is a pitiable character. Like so many it's do as I say not as I do and if you do as I do I'll criticize you for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 23:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <956a867f-bd19-4420-af52-c2c0729d7e8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408289 |
W dniu wtorek, 7 lutego 2017 23:38:42 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > 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. Even your idiot guru wasn't stupid enough to insist on that EXPERIMENTAL FACT for long, and his GR shit rejects it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 07:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <65a5c7cb-24ba-4125-babf-c9458f66b901@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408289 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:38:42 PM UTC-6, 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. No, it is NOT an experimental fact. It is an experimental fact that van Beizen is WRONG. I'm writing a paper on it, and I have examined the papers that argue both sides of the issue. Your side has NO experiments where the speed of light is seen to be c when the outside observer is moving. I go through the papers one by one, and they just argue that the movement of the EMITTER does not add to the speed of light. In my paper I then describe scientific papers which CONFIRM that light coming to a moving observer will arrive at the speed of light plus the speed of the observer. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE. Think of this situation: Source-A emits light toward Observers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Observer 1 is approaching the emission source as 0.1c, Observer 2 is approaching at 0.2c, 3 at 0.3c, 4 at 0.4c and 5 at 0.5c. In your argument (and in Prof. van Beizen's teachings, light will somehow slow down to c for all 5 observers. How? By magic. There is certainly no other explanation. > > 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? That is what I am doing. You are the one who is assuming Prof. van Beizen is right without question and without looking for evidence. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <48e38cb4-ee52-4822-827b-54c088dc7988@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408393 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:38:42 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > No, it is NOT an experimental fact...Your side has NO experiments > where the speed of light is seen to be c when the outside observer > is moving. Well then, you are ignorant of such exp's; they are numerous. For instance, synched distanced satellites/telescopes (in space, either around the Earth or other planets, or their way through space) detect cosmic events. These sats act as clocks; When they detect a pulse (light from a cosmic event, say), these sats log the event and send us the data. The timestamps are compared from the various sats. In every case, the Δx/Δt of these is c, no matter the source of the cosmic (or man made) events. > I go through the papers one by one, and they just argue that > the movement of the EMITTER does not add to the speed of light. And here too, you need to forget about the emitter, since its *always* the receiver (the observer) who "measures" the speed of the light. Dont forget, we are on earth, which is moving very fast (wrt the sun, or center of galaxy or whatever). So we are moving, yet we have *always* measured the SoL to be c, no matter the season, no matter our longitude/latitude and no matter the source. > In my paper I then describe scientific papers which CONFIRM that > light coming to a moving observer will arrive at the speed of light > plus the speed of the observer. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE. And there is no reason to believe that it wont be c. A priory c & c+v are sensible. To discriminate, we test them. > Think of this situation: Source-A emits light toward Observers > 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Observer 1 is approaching the emission > source as 0.1c, Observer 2 is approaching at 0.2c, 3 at 0.3c, > 4 at 0.4c and 5 at 0.5c. In your argument (and in Prof. van > Beizen's teachings, light will somehow slow down to c for all > 5 observers. Well, exp's confirm this. SR predicts this. > How? That question does not belong to physics. No matter the "how", Sr still predicts the experimental result. > By magic. There is certainly no other explanation. And that is fine, since no explanations are required.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7fu88$7ko$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408393 |
On 2/8/2017 9:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:38:42 PM UTC-6, 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. > > No, it is NOT an experimental fact. Yes, it is. I'm willing to bet that you are unaware of the experiments that show that the speed of light is c regardless of the motion of the observer. What experiments do YOU think you have read on this subject? > It is an experimental fact that van Beizen is WRONG. I'm writing a paper on it, > and I have examined the papers that argue both sides of the issue. Your > side has NO experiments where the speed of light is seen to be c when the outside > observer is moving. You're flat wrong. You are UNAWARE of those publications, but that does not mean they do not exist. Perhaps if you actually READ something on the subject that could POINT you to those papers..... > I go through the papers one by one, and they just argue that the movement > of the EMITTER does not add to the speed of light. > > In my paper I then describe scientific papers which CONFIRM that light coming > to a moving observer will arrive at the speed of light plus the speed of the > observer. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE. Experimental evidence, which you are apparently unaware of, is reason to believe otherwise. > > Think of this situation: Source-A emits light toward Observers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. > Observer 1 is approaching the emission source as 0.1c, Observer 2 is approaching > at 0.2c, 3 at 0.3c, 4 at 0.4c and 5 at 0.5c. In your argument (and in Prof. van > Beizen's teachings, light will somehow slow down to c for all 5 observers. How? > By magic. There is certainly no other explanation. Oh, but there IS. You have apparently not read Einstein's paper on relativity in 1905 where the explanation is recounted. Look at the section on the addition of velocities. Note that you ASSUME that velocities combine by simple sum, because your INTUITION tells you they should, whether or not that is actually supported by experiment, whether or not the simple sum is a handy approximation but not really the truth. THEN you assume that if the light was originally approaching the observer at c+0.1c, c+0.2c, c+0.3c, c+0.4c, etc., then it has to SLOW DOWN to c by some process. But in fact, this is NOT the only explanation. As Einstein CLEARLY states in the 1905 paper which you did not read I guess, velocities do not combine by a simple sum. That is, they do not combine as v'=v+u. Instead, experiment shows they combine as v' = (v+u)/(1 + vu/c^2). Now, let's take the example of light in this expression, where v is c and u = 0.2c, say. Here u is the speed of the observer. Plug those values into this equation and tell me what v' is. Is it 1.2c? No, it is c. Just c. So light does not have to slow down at all from c to c. There is no mystical, magical slow down process. You may ask, but WHY IS IT not v'=v+u. The answer is, because it isn't. It is v' = (v+u)/(1 + vu/c^2) and DIRECT MEASUREMENT shows it is. > >> >> 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? > > That is what I am doing. You are the one who is assuming Prof. van Beizen > is right without question and without looking for evidence. You haven't found the evidence. what you are doing is taking your instincts and assumptions to produce counterarguments. But your instincts and assumptions are WRONG. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 13:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <07084b36-b458-4390-ba73-dce545aac76a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408438 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:15:08 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> 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. > > > > No, it is NOT an experimental fact. > > Yes, it is. I'm willing to bet that you are unaware of the experiments > that show that the speed of light is c regardless of the motion of the > observer. What experiments do YOU think you have read on this subject? > The experiments I cite in my paper are (1) "Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region" T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and L. Wallin and published in the October 1, 1964 edition of Physics Letters. (2) “Measuring Speed of the Light Emitted by an Ultrarelativistic Source” by E. B. Aleksandrov, P. A. Aleksandrov, V. S. Zapasskii, V. N. Korchuganov, and A. I. Stirin, and published in a 2011 issue of JETP Letters. I cite those paper because other papers cite them as "proof" that light will change speeds to compensate for the speed of an oncoming observer. Some also cite a series of experiments by different labs to prove that light is isotropic, i.e., that light travels at the same velocity in all directions. Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating that light will somehow adjust to the speed of all oncoming observers to allow them to measure the light at 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of their own motion. > > It is an experimental fact that van Beizen is WRONG. I'm writing a paper on it, > > and I have examined the papers that argue both sides of the issue. Your > > side has NO experiments where the speed of light is seen to be c when the outside > > observer is moving. > > You're flat wrong. You are UNAWARE of those publications, but that does > not mean they do not exist. Perhaps if you actually READ something on > the subject that could POINT you to those papers..... > STUPID arguments about mind reading and how you know what I am aware of and not aware of just show you have not REAL arguments. > > I go through the papers one by one, and they just argue that the movement > > of the EMITTER does not add to the speed of light. > > > > In my paper I then describe scientific papers which CONFIRM that light coming > > to a moving observer will arrive at the speed of light plus the speed of the > > observer. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE. > > Experimental evidence, which you are apparently unaware of, is reason to > believe otherwise. > There is no "experimental evidence" which says that light will change velocity to compensate for the velocity of an oncoming observer so that the oncoming observer will measure the oncoming light as c. PERIOD. Claiming that there is such evidence is either a LIE or a display of ignorance. > > > > Think of this situation: Source-A emits light toward Observers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. > > Observer 1 is approaching the emission source as 0.1c, Observer 2 is approaching > > at 0.2c, 3 at 0.3c, 4 at 0.4c and 5 at 0.5c. In your argument (and in Prof. van > > Beizen's teachings, light will somehow slow down to c for all 5 observers. How? > > By magic. There is certainly no other explanation. > > Oh, but there IS. You have apparently not read Einstein's paper on > relativity in 1905 where the explanation is recounted. Look at the > section on the addition of velocities. > There is no section on "addition of velocities." > Note that you ASSUME that velocities combine by simple sum, because your > INTUITION tells you they should, whether or not that is actually > supported by experiment, whether or not the simple sum is a handy > approximation but not really the truth. THEN you assume that if the > light was originally approaching the observer at c+0.1c, c+0.2c, c+0.3c, > c+0.4c, etc., then it has to SLOW DOWN to c by some process. > > But in fact, this is NOT the only explanation. As Einstein CLEARLY > states in the 1905 paper which you did not read I guess, velocities do > not combine by a simple sum. That is, they do not combine as v'=v+u. > Instead, experiment shows they combine as > v' = (v+u)/(1 + vu/c^2). > You are making stuff up. A search shows that v+u appears nowhere in the paper, nor does c^2.. > Now, let's take the example of light in this expression, where v is c > and u = 0.2c, say. Here u is the speed of the observer. Plug those > values into this equation and tell me what v' is. Is it 1.2c? No, it is > c. Just c. So light does not have to slow down at all from c to c. There > is no mystical, magical slow down process. > > You may ask, but WHY IS IT not v'=v+u. The answer is, because it isn't. > It is v' = (v+u)/(1 + vu/c^2) and DIRECT MEASUREMENT shows it is. > Looks like garbage mathematics to me. Put in garbage and you get out garbage. > > > >> > >> 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? > > That is what I am doing. You are the one who is assuming Prof. van Beizen > is right without question and without looking for evidence. > You haven't found the evidence. what you are doing is taking your > instincts and assumptions to produce counterarguments. But your > instincts and assumptions are WRONG. I have evidence that Prof. van Beizen is WRONG. The evidence was provided by NASA. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 22:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7g3kl$gsi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408446 |
Op 08-feb-2017 om 22:01 schreef Ed Lake: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:15:08 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin > wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> No, it is NOT an experimental fact. >> >> Yes, it is. I'm willing to bet that you are unaware of the >> experiments that show that the speed of light is c regardless of >> the motion of the observer. What experiments do YOU think you have >> read on this subject? >> > > The experiments I cite in my paper are (1) "Test of the second > postulate of special relativity in the GeV region" T. Alväger, > F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and L. Wallin and published in the October > 1, 1964 edition of Physics Letters. (2) “Measuring Speed of the Light > Emitted by an Ultrarelativistic Source” by E. B. Aleksandrov, P. A. > Aleksandrov, V. S. Zapasskii, V. N. Korchuganov, and A. I. Stirin, > and published in a 2011 issue of JETP Letters. Both papers contradict you. FLATLY :-) [snip] >>> Think of this situation: Source-A emits light toward Observers >>> 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Observer 1 is approaching the emission source >>> as 0.1c, Observer 2 is approaching at 0.2c, 3 at 0.3c, 4 at 0.4c >>> and 5 at 0.5c. In your argument (and in Prof. van Beizen's >>> teachings, light will somehow slow down to c for all 5 observers. >>> How? By magic. There is certainly no other explanation. >> >> Oh, but there IS. You have apparently not read Einstein's paper on >> relativity in 1905 where the explanation is recounted. Look at the >> section on the addition of velocities. >> > > There is no section on "addition of velocities." See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf Paragraph 5 - Composition of velocities. Pages 11-12 > >> Note that you ASSUME that velocities combine by simple sum, because >> your INTUITION tells you they should, whether or not that is >> actually supported by experiment, whether or not the simple sum is >> a handy approximation but not really the truth. THEN you assume >> that if the light was originally approaching the observer at >> c+0.1c, c+0.2c, c+0.3c, c+0.4c, etc., then it has to SLOW DOWN to c >> by some process. >> >> But in fact, this is NOT the only explanation. As Einstein CLEARLY >> states in the 1905 paper which you did not read I guess, >> velocities do not combine by a simple sum. That is, they do not >> combine as v'=v+u. Instead, experiment shows they combine as v' = >> (v+u)/(1 + vu/c^2). >> > > You are making stuff up. A search shows that v+u appears nowhere in > the paper, nor does c^2.. Page 12. ... (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) I bet that whenever there's a formula in a paper or text, you quickly close your eyes. That explain would a lot. No. It would explain ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING we have been privileged to see from you here. Good grief, it must be hell in there. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 06:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <8d7d530f-825e-4f30-834d-482b283fce12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408457 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:47:05 PM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 08-feb-2017 om 22:01 schreef Ed Lake: > >> Oh, but there IS. You have apparently not read Einstein's paper on > >> relativity in 1905 where the explanation is recounted. Look at the > >> section on the addition of velocities. > >> > > > > There is no section on "addition of velocities." > > See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > Paragraph 5 - Composition of velocities. > Pages 11-12 Why don't you just quote the passage? Now I have to assume you mean this sentence: "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. The velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of light. How can it? It's silly. All that is happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the observer's speed to produce a "converging speed" or a composite speed. NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING THEM TOGETHER. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <ba2e135a-8914-4cab-a2dc-2d02046b38dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408587 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:51:03 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:47:05 PM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel > The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity > of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. The > velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of > light. How can it? It's silly. Ok... you made another step forward (I hope you dont take 4 steps back though, as you regularly do.) > All that is happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching > observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the > observer's speed to produce a "converging speed" or a > composite speed. NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY > ADDING THEM TOGETHER. Ok. Several misconceptions you make here. The incoming equipment will nonetheless measure the speed of the incoming light to be c. This is an experimental fact. This equipment is part of the measurement procedure. SR predicts what the instruments will display (measure). SR predicts that those instruments will display c, and they do. Now, relative to the source frame, the "relative speed" or *closing speed* between the ray of light and the moving observer is added normally, "c + v". But that is not the speed of light, nor a measurement thereof. Dont mix up the two completely different notions of speed & closing speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 08:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <eef0c71e-be34-44ed-ad1b-5412a642ba53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408604 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:37:50 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:51:03 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:47:05 PM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel > > > The velocity of light is NOT ALTERED when you add the velocity > > of light to the velocity of an approaching observer. The > > velocity of the approaching observer doesn't affect the speed of > > light. How can it? It's silly. > > Ok... you made another step forward (I hope you dont take 4 steps back though, as you regularly do.) > > > All that is happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching > > observer adds together the oncoming speed of light and the > > observer's speed to produce a "converging speed" or a > > composite speed. NEITHER SPEED IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY > > ADDING THEM TOGETHER. > > Ok. Several misconceptions you make here. The incoming equipment will nonetheless measure the speed of the incoming light to be c. This is an experimental fact. This equipment is part of the measurement procedure. SR predicts what the instruments will display (measure). SR predicts that those instruments will display c, and they do. > The incoming equipment will NOT measure the speed of the incoming light to be c. THAT is an experimental fact. SR does NOT predict that "the instruments will display c." That is a MISINTERPRETATION of SR. > Now, relative to the source frame, the "relative speed" or *closing speed* between the ray of light and the moving observer is added normally, "c + v". But that is not the speed of light, nor a measurement thereof. Dont mix up the two completely different notions of speed & closing speed. I think you just said what I've been saying. And it's the reverse of what you said in your previous paragraph. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 18:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7i7ql$1qhc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408587 |
Op 09-feb-2017 om 15:51 schreef Ed Lake: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:47:05 PM UTC-6, Dirk Van de > moortel wrote: >> Op 08-feb-2017 om 22:01 schreef Ed Lake: >>>> Oh, but there IS. You have apparently not read Einstein's paper >>>> on relativity in 1905 where the explanation is recounted. Look >>>> at the section on the addition of velocities. >>>> >>> >>> There is no section on "addition of velocities." >> >> See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf >> Paragraph 5 - Composition of velocities. Pages 11-12 > > Why don't you just quote the passage? You said: There is no section on "addition of velocities" There it is. In one of your early messages here, ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/MvdvfnLXSUM/v-GbLi3jDgAJ ) you said: "I've probably read Einstein's 1905 paper a hundred times or more." So you clearly are a malicious liar AND dense. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web