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 14 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 32 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 07:14 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7kebm$15m0$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408587 |
On 2/9/2017 8:51 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > All that is happening is that EQUIPMENT used by the approaching observer adds together the oncoming speed of > light and the observer's speed to produce a "converging speed" or a composite speed. NEITHER SPEED IS > ACTUALLY CHANGED BY ADDING THEM TOGETHER. No, the equipment does NOT do such an add. That's the point of the section in the paper you should refer to. The equation there is V = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2). I'm going to put it to you directly, Ed. Are you CAPABLE of doing the 9th grade mathematics of plugging in v=c w=0.2c and seeing what result you get for the what the equipment will measure, V? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 23:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7g4j4$ihc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408446 |
Le 08/02/2017 à 22:01, Ed Lake a écrit : > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:15:08 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: ... >>> Think of this situation: Source-A emits light toward Observers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. >>> Observer 1 is approaching the emission source as 0.1c, Observer 2 is approaching >>> at 0.2c, 3 at 0.3c, 4 at 0.4c and 5 at 0.5c. In your argument (and in Prof. van >>> Beizen's teachings, light will somehow slow down to c for all 5 observers. How? >>> By magic. There is certainly no other explanation. >> >> Oh, but there IS. You have apparently not read Einstein's paper on >> relativity in 1905 where the explanation is recounted. Look at the >> section on the addition of velocities. >> > > There is no section on "addition of velocities." .. > You are making stuff up. A search shows that v+u appears nowhere in the paper, nor does c^2.. http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf Page 11. Paragraph 5: The Composition of Velocities
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 16:47 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7g75n$mn3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408446 |
On 2/8/2017 3:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> 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." Good grief! Can you not read for comprehension? MUST you read by search engine? Section 5. Composition 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.. Very well, if you cannot read a section, the notation used by Einstein is V = [v+w] / [1 + vw/c^2] in a stacked fraction, not an inline fraction, without the square brackets. It looks like this: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img71.gif Can you find it NOW?? > >> 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. > It is experimentally verified by DIRECT MEASUREMENT. Now tell me that you don't believe, it cannot be, you do not understand how it could possibly be, and therefore it is not true. Go ahead. OR, you could try LEARNING something about relativity by actually plugging into that formula v=c for the speed of light emitted w=0.2 c for the speed of the observer and see what you get for V, the speed of light as observed by the observer. Notice that there is NO SLOWDOWN implied. The only way there would be a slowdown is if it were true that V = v+w at any time. But it NEVER WAS V = v+w. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 14:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <11d1b389-95a3-4d06-aab6-35a0498983c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408468 |
On 2/8/2017 3:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> 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." Good grief! Can you not read for comprehension? MUST you read by search engine? Section 5. Composition 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.. Very well, if you cannot read a section, the notation used by Einstein is V = [v+w] / [1 + vw/c^2] in a stacked fraction, not an inline fraction, without the square brackets. It looks like this: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img71.gif Can you find it NOW?? > >> 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. > It is experimentally verified by DIRECT MEASUREMENT. Now tell me that you don't believe, it cannot be, you do not understand how it could possibly be, and therefore it is not true. Go ahead. OR, you could try LEARNING something about relativity by actually plugging into that formula v=c for the spe... Why do you continue to Abuse yourself with the "Ed Lake" Beast? He has No comprehension of the mass / energy equivalence There is no point explaining to the "Ed Lake" Beast until It has been convinced to learn & comprehend the mass / energy equivalence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 17:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589ba189$0$43736$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408393 |
On 2/8/2017 10:20 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. 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 > That's what Odd does Ed. To him physics is a religion and all dogma is always assumed correct without proof. To view proof is to give it credibility so Odd never reads any evidence that goes against his religion. Such is what he calls heresy and it must always be both ignored and ridiculed. Nuff said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:39 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <2aa43da1-661e-4761-849a-8935edc280d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408472 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:54:03 PM UTC-6, benj wrote: > On 2/8/2017 10:20 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: > >> 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 > > > That's what Odd does Ed. To him physics is a religion and all dogma is > always assumed correct without proof. To view proof is to give it > credibility so Odd never reads any evidence that goes against his > religion. Such is what he calls heresy and it must always be both > ignored and ridiculed. Nuff said. Yeah. I call it Religio Mathematica, the Religion of Mathematics. They seem to believe that mathematics is infallible, while in reality, mathematics can just be garbage in garbage out. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 07:05 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <2a166b8d-8e6b-4ba9-8295-74e1559da01e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408284 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:20:37 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > >>> I took Brian Greene's course on "Time and Einstein" sometime in 2014. I thought it was > >>> TOTAL CRAP. Back in August of 2016 I put a comment about it on my > >>> blog: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/08/physics-teachers-are-teaching.html > >> > >> Let me be clear about something. When you take an online course like > >> this, you are not doing the same thing as taking a college course. The > >> reason is that you cannot ask any questions in the online course. All > >> you can say is, "I don't think that's right" or "I don't understand how > >> what you say could be possible" and then you dismiss the course as > >> useless. Compare this to a class where you can raise your hand and say > >> these same things and have the professor approach the explanation a > >> different way or to convince you that a claim you disbelieve is in fact > >> true. > >> > >> This is why I suggest that you actually learn by taking a course. > >> > > > > I took the on-line course because it was free and I could fit it into my schedule wherever I wanted. > > Taking an actual school course means waiting until September, and if I disagree with the professor, > > I get a failing grade. He's not going to change his course to fit what I tell him. And you just > > ASSUME he's going to be able to explain things to cause me to see that he is right. > > This smells of a weak excuse. You sound like you are avoiding > interactions with a human being who would be in a position to teach you > something. You do not like being put in that position? You're afraid of > being judged? You don't want to sit in a position of pupil and insist on > being put on a peer-to-peer basis so that your ideas get as much air > time as what he's teaching you? > > My experience is that teachers LOVE students who ask a lot of questions, > not the ones who just nod and say nothing. They do not FLUNK students > for asking questions. And yes, they do take questions as useful cues to > know that they have not explained something well, and so they take a > different approach to explain the same thing. Do not doom your > instructor to failure in convincing you ahead of time. That accomplishes > nothing. > > > > > I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who appears to teach at Loyola > > Marymount University in Los Angeles. What he is saying about Einstein's Second Postulate to his > > Special Theory of Relativity is CRAP. He explains that a lot of people disagree with him, but > > he's teaching it anyway. Apparently because it is part of the prescribed course. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BlfD2sDoQ > > Again, notice that you did not have any opportunity to ask van Biezen > your questions. You just call it CRAP and dismiss it. I saw nothing in > that video that was wrong, and he didn't say anything that other people > would disagree with in that 4 minute video. What did you find wrong with > it? Quote the statement you found either in conflict with fact or is > confusing to you? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I wrote a comment about it for my web site on December 11, 2016. Here is what I wrote: Professor Michel van Biezen [is] telling his students that, if two space ships are approaching each other, and the space ship on the left (observer-A) is shining a light toward the space ship on the right (observer-B), both observers will see the light traveling at the speed of light, i.e., 186,000 miles per second. I disagree with that. Prof. van Biezen also explains that Observer-A will not see the light traveling away from him at the speed of his space ship plus the speed of light. That part is correct and is how I interpret Einstein's Second Postulate. 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. At the 40 second mark in the video, Prof. van Biezen explains that a lot of people find this very difficult to believe, "even very intelligent people." He makes that point over and over in the video. But he explains nothing to make it more easy to understand, he just says over and over that it is what Einstein wrote. But that is NOT what Einstein wrote. That is evidently just how some scientists misinterpret what Einstein said -- apparently a LOT of scientists. Einstein said that TIME will slow down for Observer-A due to his velocity (96% of the speed of light.) Therefore, when Observer-A shines a light out the nose of his space ship, the speed of that light per second that Observer-A will see will be measured using Observer-A's very long Time Dilated seconds. Einstein said nothing about the speed Observer-B will see that same light traveling. He only said that if Observer-B shined a light out of the nose of his space ship, he would also see the light traveling at 186,000 miles per his seconds. And the same for any other observer emitting light. On the whiteboard behind him, Prof. van Biezen wrote "As measured in any inertial reference frame, light propagates through space at velocity c independent of the velocity of the source." What that means is that the velocity of the source cannot be added to the velocity of light. If Observer-A is the source, the speed of his space ship cannot be added to the speed of the light he emits. His light will still just travel at 186,000 miles per second. However, if Observer-B sees the light coming toward him, and Observer-B is traveling toward the source of the light at high speed, Einstein says nothing about such a situation. In that situation, Observer-B would see the light coming at his ship's velocity PLUS the speed of light. (The light will seem extremely blue-shifted.) The light is traveling at the speed of light. Observer-B's speed cannot affect the actual speed of light coming from some other source. That makes no sense. Prof. van Biezen is just misunderstanding what Einstein wrote. And, evidently, so are countless other scientists and professors. And they do not explain, they just say it is how they interpret what Einstein wrote, so it must be true - even if it makes no sense to a lot of other people. I spent a large part of last week looking for EVIDENCE to support their beliefs. I found none. I found a couple papers which claim to confirm the belief, but the experiments they cite have a stationary Observer-B, so they prove nothing. I also found a couple papers which challenge the misinterpretation, but those papers try to explain the error as resulting from some natural phenomenon, not just a bizarre misinterpretation of what Einstein wrote. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7fu8h$7ko$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408392 |
On 2/8/2017 9:05 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > That makes no sense. Prof. van Biezen is just misunderstanding what Einstein wrote. And, evidently, > so are countless other scientists and professors. And they do not explain, they just say it is how > they interpret what Einstein wrote, so it must be true - even if it makes no sense to a lot of other people. It would make substantially more sense if you read the ENTIRETY of Einstein's 1905 paper, plus a few more papers he wrote on the subject of special relativity. In particular, I would direct you to the section on the addition of velocities and actually work out a couple of key examples for yourself. What van Biezen says is that you cannot just add velocities of ANYTHING as a straightforward sum. What he didn't say in that short video is that how velocities combine in the REAL WORLD as shown in experiment is given in that 1905 paper. And if you actually pay attention to that section, then it becomes clear how the speed of light is always c, regardless of the motion of the source AND regardless of the motion of the observer. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 14:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7fu96$7ko$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408392 |
On 2/8/2017 9:05 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > At the 40 second mark in the video, Prof. van Biezen explains that a lot of people find this > very difficult to believe, "even very intelligent people." He makes that point over and > over in the video. But he explains nothing to make it more easy to understand, he just > says over and over that it is what Einstein wrote. That's right! And no, van Biezen does not explain IN THAT SHORT VIDEO how to come to understand that it IS true. But it is true nonetheless, regardless that it violates the sensibilities of intelligent people. The point van Biezen is making is that if you are wrong about something in nature, this does not make you stupid. Perfectly rational and well-thinking people can have misconceptions about how nature really works. Einstein's thinking was classified as revolutionary not only because it did violate people's sensibilities BUT ALSO because it turned out he was right, as shown in experiment. How to think about it so that Einstein's claim seem more reasonable, and the experimental results that proved Einstein's claims were right -- neither of these were accounted for by van Biezen in that video. But he DID NOT AIM TO in that video. All he wanted to do was to present the startling fact. And then perhaps LATER he would refer to things that might explain it or prove that it is true. > > But that is NOT what Einstein wrote. It is what he wrote, just not in the short 1905 paper that you've read. That paper was the first of MANY he wrote on the subject and is not the be-all, end-all comprehensive review of special relativity by any stretch. You should not be so foolish to expect it to be that. What you are looking for is some compelling treatise that will do three things: - Explain to you how to reason your way to the claims of relativity in a way that makes logical and intuitive sense; - Explain exactly what is wrong with some of the intuitions you have that say such things are impossible; - Account for all the compelling experimental evidence that proves that these claims are correct. AND you are hoping to find such a treatise on the internet!!! What I'm telling you is that this search for such a compelling treatise on the internet is FUTILE. And that you will have better luck reading good BOOKS on the subject. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 13:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <c68ef7c3-a30e-4ae7-b068-c665b1bb888d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408441 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:15:37 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/8/2017 9:05 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > At the 40 second mark in the video, Prof. van Biezen explains that a lot of people find this > > very difficult to believe, "even very intelligent people." He makes that point over and > > over in the video. But he explains nothing to make it more easy to understand, he just > > says over and over that it is what Einstein wrote. > > That's right! And no, van Biezen does not explain IN THAT SHORT VIDEO > how to come to understand that it IS true. But it is true nonetheless, > regardless that it violates the sensibilities of intelligent people. The > point van Biezen is making is that if you are wrong about something in > nature, this does not make you stupid. Perfectly rational and > well-thinking people can have misconceptions about how nature really > works. Einstein's thinking was classified as revolutionary not only > because it did violate people's sensibilities BUT ALSO because it turned > out he was right, as shown in experiment. > > How to think about it so that Einstein's claim seem more reasonable, and > the experimental results that proved Einstein's claims were right -- > neither of these were accounted for by van Biezen in that video. But he > DID NOT AIM TO in that video. All he wanted to do was to present the > startling fact. And then perhaps LATER he would refer to things that > might explain it or prove that it is true. > > > > > But that is NOT what Einstein wrote. > > It is what he wrote, just not in the short 1905 paper that you've read. > That paper was the first of MANY he wrote on the subject and is not the > be-all, end-all comprehensive review of special relativity by any > stretch. You should not be so foolish to expect it to be that. > > What you are looking for is some compelling treatise that will do three > things: > - Explain to you how to reason your way to the claims of relativity in a > way that makes logical and intuitive sense; > - Explain exactly what is wrong with some of the intuitions you have > that say such things are impossible; > - Account for all the compelling experimental evidence that proves that > these claims are correct. > AND you are hoping to find such a treatise on the internet!!! > > What I'm telling you is that this search for such a compelling treatise > on the internet is FUTILE. And that you will have better luck reading > good BOOKS on the subject. You have NO CLUE as to what I'm doing. I've already completed my paper about Time Dilation. It is out for peer review. I have a paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity that is fully researched. I just need to find the right way to present some of the information. The same with two other papers I have in the works. The research is done, it's just a matter of organizing the papers to present the data and conclusions in the best way. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 16:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7g7bi$mn3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408454 |
On 2/8/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:15:37 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> What you are looking for is some compelling treatise that will do three >> things: >> - Explain to you how to reason your way to the claims of relativity in a >> way that makes logical and intuitive sense; >> - Explain exactly what is wrong with some of the intuitions you have >> that say such things are impossible; >> - Account for all the compelling experimental evidence that proves that >> these claims are correct. >> AND you are hoping to find such a treatise on the internet!!! >> >> What I'm telling you is that this search for such a compelling treatise >> on the internet is FUTILE. And that you will have better luck reading >> good BOOKS on the subject. > > You have NO CLUE as to what I'm doing. I've already completed my paper about > Time Dilation. It is out for peer review. I have a paper on Einstein's > Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity that is fully researched. > I just need to find the right way to present some of the information. The same > with two other papers I have in the works. The research is done, it's just > a matter of organizing the papers to present the data and conclusions in the best way. > And it goes without saying that you completed your paper about Time Dilation and you say you have fully researched a paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, WITHOUT EVER HAVING READ AND COMPREHENDED Einsteins' 1905 paper that introduced the subject in the first place. > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 11:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <571ad679-ff8b-42c4-89fb-7eeb7be5e264@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408392 |
On February 8, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who >>> appears to teach at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. > > Professor Michel van Biezen telling his students that, if two space ships > are approaching each other, and the space ship on the left (observer-A) > is shining a light toward the space ship on the right (observer-B), both > observers will see the light traveling at the speed of light, i.e., 186,000 > miles per second. > > But then Prof. van Biezen goes on 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. > If is traveling toward the source of the light at high speed, > Observer-B would see the light coming at his ship's > velocity PLUS the speed of light. Good thinking and common sense, Ed. No magic for us! It's like, I carry a portable radio, which plays music. The so-called "scientists" say it's due to "radio waves" (a/k/a "the airwaves"). huh? INVISIBLE -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 11:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <70b71d44-5903-4768-88d6-b9395ee4fc73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408392 |
On February 13, RichD wrote: > I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who > appears to teach at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. > Professor Michel van Biezen telling his students that, if two space ships > are approaching each other, and the space ship on the left (observer-A) > is shining a light toward the space ship on the right (observer-B), both > observers will see the light traveling at the speed of light, i.e., 186,000 > miles per second. > But then Prof. van Biezen goes on 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. > If is traveling toward the source of the light at high speed, > Observer-B would see the light coming at his ship's > velocity PLUS the speed of light. Good thinking and common sense, Ed. No magic for us! It's like, I carry a portable radio, which plays music. The so-called "scientists" say it's due to "radio waves"; (a/k/a "the airwaves") huh??? INVISIBLE waves, which cannot be seen, felt, smelled, or anything? Is it MAGIC? It makes no sense, no logic, no FACTS for support! Might as well say the music is carried on angels' wings. Then they claim papers, Math, lectures, and all kinds of stuff to PROVE these invisible "radio waves". They've all been brainwashed, it's plain STUPID. I'm working on a scientific paper to show where the music really comes from, but the journals are in a conspiracy against me, they won't listen to the TRUTH - - Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 17:46 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7dm95$1o1o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408277 |
On 2/7/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: [You mentioned your library of books on science you've read] Alright, so let's see if we can break down those that have to do with relativity, those that have to do with physics, and those that have to do with non-physics science, and in each case we'll flag whether it is an instructional text or a popularization. Scanning your posts for the last two years.... Relativity A. Unzicker, Einstein's Lost Key Self-published S. Blankson, Time in Science and Life Self-published C. DeCristofano, A Black Hole is Not... Children's book Physics L. Smolin, The Trouble with Physics Popularization J. Baggot, Farewell to Reality Popularization N. Tyson, Death by Black Hole Popularization R. Feynman, The Character of Physical.. Popularization, but a good one M. Kaku, Physics of the Impossible Popularization A. Frank, About Time Popularization R. Wolke, What Einstein Told His.... Popularization S. Hawking et al., The Grand Design Popularization Non-physics science P. Davies, The Eerie Silence Popularization B. Bryson, A Short History of Nearly... Popularization L. Mlodinow, The Upright Thinkers Popularization M. Moffit et al., ASAP Science Popularization J. Brockman, This Explains Everything Popularization D. Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity Popularization R. Munroe, What If? Popularization M. Mlodownik, Stuff Matters Popularization E. Sass et al., History of the World Popularization So, by your own account, you've come up with some thoughts on time dilation without reading a SINGLE reputable book on relativity, popularization or no. I notice that you did not even tackle Einstein's 1905 paper until nine months after you'd started posting your ideas on time dilation. What does this say about you? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 21:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589a7d95$0$57949$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408304 |
On 2/7/2017 6:46 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > [You mentioned your library of books on science you've read] > > Alright, so let's see if we can break down those that have to do with > relativity, those that have to do with physics, and those that have to > do with non-physics science, and in each case we'll flag whether it is > an instructional text or a popularization. Scanning your posts for the > last two years.... > > Relativity > A. Unzicker, Einstein's Lost Key Self-published > S. Blankson, Time in Science and Life Self-published > C. DeCristofano, A Black Hole is Not... Children's book > > Physics > L. Smolin, The Trouble with Physics Popularization > J. Baggot, Farewell to Reality Popularization > N. Tyson, Death by Black Hole Popularization > R. Feynman, The Character of Physical.. Popularization, but a good one > M. Kaku, Physics of the Impossible Popularization > A. Frank, About Time Popularization > R. Wolke, What Einstein Told His.... Popularization > S. Hawking et al., The Grand Design Popularization > > Non-physics science > P. Davies, The Eerie Silence Popularization > B. Bryson, A Short History of Nearly... Popularization > L. Mlodinow, The Upright Thinkers Popularization > M. Moffit et al., ASAP Science Popularization > J. Brockman, This Explains Everything Popularization > D. Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity Popularization > R. Munroe, What If? Popularization > M. Mlodownik, Stuff Matters Popularization > E. Sass et al., History of the World Popularization > > So, by your own account, you've come up with some thoughts on time > dilation without reading a SINGLE reputable book on relativity, > popularization or no. I notice that you did not even tackle Einstein's > 1905 paper until nine months after you'd started posting your ideas on > time dilation. > > What does this say about you? > > It says he's right with the times. Don't you know that populism is what is the big thing right now. You are always with the latest fashion in everything Boinker. Get with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 07:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <30852487-a323-4684-9313-fc7e97fa9d58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408304 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 3:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > [You mentioned your library of books on science you've read] > > Alright, so let's see if we can break down those that have to do with > relativity, those that have to do with physics, and those that have to > do with non-physics science, and in each case we'll flag whether it is > an instructional text or a popularization. Scanning your posts for the > last two years.... > > Relativity > A. Unzicker, Einstein's Lost Key Self-published > S. Blankson, Time in Science and Life Self-published > C. DeCristofano, A Black Hole is Not... Children's book > > Physics > L. Smolin, The Trouble with Physics Popularization > J. Baggot, Farewell to Reality Popularization > N. Tyson, Death by Black Hole Popularization > R. Feynman, The Character of Physical.. Popularization, but a good one > M. Kaku, Physics of the Impossible Popularization > A. Frank, About Time Popularization > R. Wolke, What Einstein Told His.... Popularization > S. Hawking et al., The Grand Design Popularization > > Non-physics science > P. Davies, The Eerie Silence Popularization > B. Bryson, A Short History of Nearly... Popularization > L. Mlodinow, The Upright Thinkers Popularization > M. Moffit et al., ASAP Science Popularization > J. Brockman, This Explains Everything Popularization > D. Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity Popularization > R. Munroe, What If? Popularization > M. Mlodownik, Stuff Matters Popularization > E. Sass et al., History of the World Popularization > > So, by your own account, you've come up with some thoughts on time > dilation without reading a SINGLE reputable book on relativity, > popularization or no. I notice that you did not even tackle Einstein's > 1905 paper until nine months after you'd started posting your ideas on > time dilation. > > What does this say about you? You endlessly fail to understand. The EVIDENCE says that time dilation is a real, natural phenomenon that exists without Relativity. Relativity, however, is just a problem that exists because time dilation exists. In other words, anyone with two atomic clocks can witness time dilation. But Relativity requires at least two observers AND time dilation. The more you argue that I don't use sources that you approve of, the more MEANINGLESS your arguments become. You need to start discussing EVIDENCE of TIME DILATION instead of which information sources you consider acceptable. I don't give a damn about your preferences. If you persist in arguing that you do not approve of my sources, I'll just ignore your posts. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <3c5f02e6-0fc0-4c44-8a1c-435dc4c51d47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408398 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:51:52 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > You need to start discussing EVIDENCE of TIME DILATION When you bring a clock over there and back, it shows a different value from the clock which remained. this is an observed fact. This effect is called "time dilation". I prefer to call it "different values" or " t'<t ". This effect of different values is also predicted by relativity. Relativity also predicts time discrepancies in many different scenarios. The differences in values, the t'<t is *called* "time dilation". Understand the definition of "time dilation" now? When two clocks are compared and their values differ, that is *called* time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <ecf79a2c-4f03-44ca-a9ba-701e29ba875b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408402 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:29:31 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:51:52 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:46:50 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > You need to start discussing EVIDENCE of TIME DILATION > > When you bring a clock over there and back, it shows a different value from the clock which remained. this is an observed fact. This effect is called "time dilation". I prefer to call it "different values" or " t'<t ". This effect of different values is also predicted by relativity. Relativity also predicts time discrepancies in many different scenarios. The differences in values, the t'<t is *called* "time dilation". So that means that clocks during relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. IOW, clocks in relative motion are running at different rates. > > Understand the definition of "time dilation" now? When two clocks are compared and their values differ, that is *called* time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <eaf3aa13-ea20-4a75-b6a3-2520039adf86@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408405 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:44:38 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:29:31 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > When you bring a clock over there and back, it shows a different > > value from the clock which remained. this is an observed fact. > > This effect is called "time dilation". I prefer to call it > > "different values" or " t'<t "... > > So that means that clocks during relative motion accumulate clock > seconds at different rates. No, it doesn't mean that. It says NOTHING about "during relative motion". For instance, maybe both clocks were OFF, and as I arrive, I manually put one back a few seconds. So, t' < t, yet both were working at the same rate (rate of zero, since they were off). The only observable conclusion is that as we verify the clocks, t' < t. All the rest, the 'causes' or the "during" are useless conjectures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 13:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <c771084e-454c-4caf-8710-5242703d5bb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408408 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:59:14 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:44:38 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:29:31 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > > > When you bring a clock over there and back, it shows a different > > > value from the clock which remained. this is an observed fact. > > > This effect is called "time dilation". I prefer to call it > > > "different values" or " t'<t "... > > > > So that means that clocks during relative motion accumulate clock > > seconds at different rates. > > No, it doesn't mean that. It says NOTHING about "during relative motion". Yes it means that....during relative motion the moving clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma. >For instance, maybe both clocks were OFF, and as I arrive, I manually put one back a few seconds. The both clock will accumulate clock seconds at the same rate.....but the few second you put back manually is caused by that they were accumulating clock seconds at different rates during relative motion. >So, t' < t, yet both were working at the same rate (rate of zero, since they were off). Both were running at the same rate only when they were stationary wrt each other. > > The only observable conclusion is that as we verify the clocks, t' < t. > All the rest, the 'causes' or the "during" are useless conjectures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web