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 20 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 32 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 18:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589bac00$0$10613$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408461 |
On 2/8/2017 5:06 PM, Emmaline Coots wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> I strike a match: what "caused" the flame? -- My action of moving the >> match head across a rough surface? The muscle contractions and nerve >> impulses in my hand? The combination of P and O atoms? The detailed >> chemistry of P and O atoms that generates an exothermic reaction? My >> desire for heat and light? How could one possibly quantify such >> ambiguity? Bottom line: YOU DON'T KNOW what "causes" anything, you just >> have vague notions that happen to work in your everyday life (and which >> DON'T work in other regimes). > > Au contraire, monsiour. The Causality in Physics is not about the above. > But, merely a timing issue, as if A causate B then A comes before B. > > (and yes, what you wrote is kind of magic. At the end, a Thought caused > your flame. And again, very funny indeed, you just gave the proof that > Thoughts are not stored locally). Excellent post indeed. > Amen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 18:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589ba6e9$0$10702$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408397 |
On 2/8/2017 10:45 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 2/7/17 2/7/17 4:47 PM, benj wrote: >> Are you denying causality as a law of physics? > > That depends in detail on what you mean by "causality". The common > meaning of the word, which is what you seem to mean, has only a minor > place in physics, because it is at best an APPROXIMATION to phenomena; > it is so incredibly ambiguous that it is quite useless in forming > physical theories. Causality is the statement that all present actions are never caused by future events. So simple. > I strike a match: what "caused" the flame? -- My action of > moving the match head across a rough surface? The muscle > contractions and nerve impulses in my hand? The combination > of P and O atoms? The detailed chemistry of P and O atoms > that generates an exothermic reaction? My desire for heat > and light? How could one possibly quantify such ambiguity? Why do you think that complexity cannot be understood? The details are all easily understood and ARE understood at many levels. From the muscles to the friction to the chemistry to the plasma to the glowing embers. Careful experiment can easily quantify these things. To say it can't is nonsense. There is no ambiguity. Now when you get to your MIND and WHY you struck the match, now there one can argue "free will". But did you do it because of some other match that will be struck at some time in the future? Don't think so. > Bottom line: YOU DON'T KNOW what "causes" anything, you > just have vague notions that happen to work in your everyday > life (and which DON'T work in other regimes). Nonsense. ALL of phsyics is cause and effect. Be it striking a match or the Maxwell equations of currents and fields or atoms repelling. Your inability to understand complexity is not argument that regularity does not exist. That's on the same level as the moon not existing because you aren't looking at it. > At base you make a domain error: It is hopeless to attempt to model my > example above using physical theories, because it is VASTLY too > complicated. Indeed, any situation to which you would apply "causality" > is likewise far too complicated for physical modeling. YOUR "COMMON > SENSE" ABOUT THE SITUATIONS YOU KNOW DOES NOT CARRY OVER INTO DOMAINS IN > WHICH PHYSICAL THEORIES APPLY. So your idea is my computer cannot be deterministic because it's so complex I can't follow what it does. Nonsense. The key point is that if you deny causality then my computer will do things as a result of things that WILL happen in the future rather than did happen in the past. Please explain to me how this future effect can work. > You also make an approximation error: for almost any situation to which > you say "A caused B", there is a non-zero likelihood that A did NOT > actually "cause" B, or even that B "caused" A but you got it backwards. > (More on this below.) So your idea is that if I can't measure something then it has no cause. Right. Nothing exists unless I SAY it does? Is that your science? >> It's the fashion now to point out >> that math of the laws of physics works equally well backwards and >> forwards in >> time. > > Hmmmm. This is not "fashion", this is the way the equations in our > current theories work [#]. But practical applications of those theories > do NOT, because in almost all cases the initial and final conditions of > an interaction have quite different likelihoods of occurring. I said it is the way the equations work. But math is not more real than reality (duh). Causality isn't a math law, it's a law of physics or else you could give me an example of causality violations. As for fashion, that is just your opinion. I've heard enough people (Now including you) argue that since math works both ways that reality must too. I call that fashion. You can use whatever word you like. > When the likelihood of an interaction proceeding in one > direction is ~ 100%, and the likelihood of it proceeding > backwards is ~ 10^-99, humans discount the latter and call > the former "caused". Even when the underlying equations > describing both processes go equally well in either direction. > > [#] Well, sort of. The actual symmetry is CPT, and you are > only thinking of T -- that's an aspect of your domain error. > >> [misconceptions and fantasies about things he know nothing about] > >> And QM action at a distance [...] > > You are confused, and are probably mistaking an APPROXIMATION with a > real theory. There is no "action at a distance" in any fundamental > physical theory of modern physics -- all field operators commute at > space. Non-locality is just a new name for "action at a distance". Admit it. Quit trying to confuse the issue. Proving math does not prove reality. Math and reality are two different things. > (While you probably don't know what that last phrase means, it > is a fundamental tenet of modern physics, and it does prevent > any sort of "action at a distance". This is a key place where > SR enters into all modern physical theories.) > >> time is never observed to run backwards > > Yes. As predicted by modern physics. You confuse the bare equations of > theories with the application of those theories to the world. Wait an minute. I say the future never determines the present and you say usually it doesn't but has a 10^99 chance it does. Which is non-zero. So please name the experiment that showed that 10^99 chance occurring. I don't think you can. That means the answer is zero and you are wrong. Note. you confuse math fantasy with reality. They are not the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 08:45 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7hval$1a98$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408478 |
On 2/8/2017 5:16 PM, benj wrote: > Causality is the statement that all present actions are never caused by > future events. So simple. And this is not a recognized law of physics. Sorry, but no. I know you WANT it to be, but that doesn't make it so. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:19 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7i1au$1e56$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408478 |
On 2/8/2017 5:16 PM, benj wrote: > Non-locality is just a new name for "action at a distance". Admit it. Certainly not true. Your misconceptions about things only erode your claim to having been a trained scientist. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 17:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589ceb25$0$17335$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408597 |
On 2/9/2017 10:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/8/2017 5:16 PM, benj wrote: >> Non-locality is just a new name for "action at a distance". Admit it. > > Certainly not true. Your misconceptions about things only erode your > claim to having been a trained scientist. > You really do have a problem with words and what they mean, don't you? Your total disregard of logic and definitions is eroding your claim to be a trained philosopher. (Or does that prove you actually are one?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 18:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <3188b9ee-767f-40f3-895e-2cd1e70ee906@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407755 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:15:14 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:29:38 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > I'd say that one or both of the clocks is not set properly. There you go!! because of the empirical fact that the two values differed, that t' < t, YOU "say" that one or both of the clocks is not set properly. Nowhere did the clocks "say" those words. It is the way *you* describe, or voice the fact that t' < t. It is your own personal description. Some people say t'<t, some say that one or both of the clocks is not set properly, some say "runs slow", some say time dilation etc... See the point? We all choose loose descriptions of the fact that t' < t. Best to stick to the facts, to what the clocks say; they say t'<t. "time dilation" is just an expression to mean that two values differ, for whatever reason. > You are as wrong as you can be. Relativity DOES say that moving > clocks run slow. No it doesnt. Some *people* say that moving clocks run slow, not the clocks, nor relativity. > I said YOUR misinterpretation of relativity is inconsistent > with the facts. He did not misinterpret relativity since he did not make any interpretations! > The facts show that moving clocks run slow. No. The facts are that the two values differed, that t' < t. What happened in between is unknown and irrelevant. > Clearly one of us doesn't. I can explain time dilation, you cannot. No. You think you can explain it, but you are totally oblivious to its meaning & understanding. You have a lot of reading to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 05:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <bc2c3f5d-c279-4535-8f6c-469b4cacff56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407796 |
W dniu sobota, 4 lutego 2017 03:18:22 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > There you go!! because of the empirical fact that the two values differed, that t' < t, YOU "say" that one or both of the clocks is not set properly. > Nowhere did the clocks "say" those words. It is the way *you* describe, or voice the fact that t' < t. It is your own personal description. Here is real data from real clocks: http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm because of the empirical fact that the two values are equal, t'=t, (against moronic prophecies of your idiot guru) YOU "say" that one of the clocks is not set properly. Nowhere did the clocks "say" those words. It is the way *you* describe, or voice the fact that t'=t. It is your own personal description. > > Some people say t'<t, some say that one or both of the clocks is not set properly, some say "runs slow", some say time dilation etc... See the point? We all choose loose descriptions of the fact that t' < t. There is no such fact, however. Here is real data from real clocks: http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm Best to stick to the facts, to what the clocks say; they say t'=t. It's unacceptable to your bunch of brainwashed idiots, however. > > No. The facts are that the two values differed, that t' < t. A lie, as expected from fanatic, lying shit. Here is real data from real clocks: http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 11:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <981f9f0e-a00d-4db2-84cf-08c4e91d9918@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407694 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 5:19:21 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > YOU ARE WRONG! He is right. > How many times do I have to point that out to you? Einstein's > 1905 paper on Special Relativity DOES say that moving clocks run > slow. Its not because *he* voiced it that way, that that it makes it true. "run slow" is just a metaphor, a loose description, that many authors use. Dont take literally what they say. You must read *many* docs on the subject & *understand*. Some books say time runs slow, and some say it doesn't run slow. Yet, these are not in contradiction because they are attributing different meanings to the expression. Recall that words have meaning within context. It up to the reader to have the experience and the brains to figure out the context and the correct interpretation of the words. This is where you fail big time. You have a lot of reading to do... > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1 2 tv2/c2 second SLOW." Because t' < t, *he* voiced it as "SLOW". Nowhere in the expression " t' < t " do you see the word "slow". This word is an addon, an embellishment of the author, NOT of the theory. > Not so. There are indeed two interpretations of Einstein's theories, > but only one is consistent with the facts. As we have seen, your > interpretation simply IGNORES THE FACTS. The only fact is that empirically, t' < t. So, lets just say t' < t and forego all the extra unnecessary and ambiguous words. > No, the facts and evidence are NOT consistent with both. > There have been DOZENS of experiments which show that moving > clocks run slow, No, they show that t' < t. Nowhere do the clocks or devices display the words "I ran slow..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 15:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <a6aceff2-4131-4ec4-8821-cd3a5e6c1280@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407694 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 5:19:21 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 2/2/2017 4:51 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:13:56 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > >> The following notions are WRONG, and are merely used in writings for the popular > > >> press by authors who either don't know the underlying physics, or who deem the > > >> actual details too complicated: > > >> * Moving clocks run slow > > >> * Mirrors reflect because their atoms absorb and re-emit photons > > >> > > > > > > CLAIMING they are wrong does not make them wrong. Neither does your BELIEF that > > > they are wrong. Both statements seem logical and true to me. It is what the > > > FACTS AND EVIDENCE say. > > > > > > > I'll put it to you this way, Ed. > > At the very least, these statements are YOUR INTERPRETATION of what is > > going on. > > At the very least, you should acknowledge that there are two other > > theories involved that DO NOT say those things and still are consistent > > with experimental observations. Special relativity, for example, does > > NOT say that moving clocks run slow, but is in fact nonetheless > > consistent with the observations. Quantum electrodynamics does NOT say > > that mirrors reflect because their atoms absorb and re-emit photons. > > > > YOU ARE WRONG! How many times do I have to point that out to you? Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity DOES say that moving clocks run slow. He doesn't use that exact phrase, but if you search for the word "slow" in the paper, you will find these passages: > > "that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is SLOW by 1 − p 1 − v2/c2 seconds per second" 1. You ought to understand what this phrase actually _means_ in the paper. It doesn't mean what you think (you assume the mundane English meaning of the word is all there is to it). > "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1 2 tv2/c2 second SLOW." Ditto. The paper describes precisely the theory. Only this counts, not the descriptions and metaphors Einstein used in his paper (virtually all papers are full of metaphors, the assumption being the reader is a professional who is well-acquainted with this sort of usage, simply to avoid making the presentation unnecessarily long, pedantic, and tedious. It's a standard failing of the hobbyists here to read just the literal meanings of _words_ rather than the _theory actual content_. For example, countless people on this NG have fallen into the trap of reading the introduction to the paper as if it was the actual description of the theory. 2. This is the very first paper on the subject of relativity so not everything was 100% clear to the author himself yet. A year later, and esp. after Minkowski's 1908 reformulation in terms of geometry, he would have very likely used different wording. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Irvin Starrett <etrrarn@arneir.etr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 04:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o712fg$p62$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407614 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > That is not "my belief", I described how this is modeled in modern > physics. If you want to insist that popular writings are the final word > and are infallibly accurate, that's YOUR problem, not mine. (It is, of > course, a very silly attitude.) We agree. Except when you do research and get a very good idea, hence the need to investigate the new model. > The ACTUAL way these phenomena are modeled is as I have explained at > length: > * "time dilation" is a geometrical projection, not clocks running slow Exactly! I always said to those new beginners, wannabe relativists, that there is no need for clocks in Relativity. Relativity is not about clocks. Clearly those clocks are confusing plebs. > * light is reflected by mirrors from electrons in the conduction band, > not absorption and re-emission by atoms Yes, but that conduction band HAS to be EXCITED by the incoming photons. And you have to dive deeper into your model to model that accordingly. > The ACTUAL models of these phenomena, which I described, account for > them extremely well. Tom Roberts Good post. Now please post your model. (in pseudo code is fine for me)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 09:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <8d7160a1-7b21-4954-a0aa-65f0d2a92f0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407071 |
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:40:57 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 1/28/17 1/28/17 11:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Another key point is: When an atom emits a photon, the photon is emitted > > INSTANTLY. > > This is also wrong. While many such emissions occur in femtoseconds to > picoseconds, some atomic and molecular transitions are metastable and have time > constants of microseconds or longer (occasionally MUCH longer -- phosphorescent > paint emits light over many hours). This, for instance, is essential to the > operation of a laser. > > > Tom Roberts It appears you are confusing an "emission" with a "pulse." The emission of a photon is instantaneous and "nature made." The release of a pulse is controlled by man-made equipment. When an atom emits a photon, it is emitted instantly at the local speed of light. In most cases, the photon is also emitted in a random direction. Mirrors are used to resend the photons in a specific direction. Shutters, rotating gears and rotating mirrors are used to send out light in timed pulses. A pulse can contain any number of photons. A "femtosecond laser" is a laser that sends out pulses that are far less than one picosecond (one trillionth of a second) apart. Even at that rate, a pulse can involve millions of photons. If you know the time when a pulse was sent, the distance it was sent, and the time the pulse was received, you can calculate the speed of light, i.e., the speed of all the photons comprising the pulse. If the light is coming in a constant stream of photons (the way light comes from any star, including the sun) there's no way to tell when the photons were emitted, so there's no way to measure the speed of the photons. When you detect a photon you destroy the photon, so there is no way to detect a specific photon as it enters a measuring tube AND as it hits the end of the measuring tube. If you measure two photons, there is no way to know that they were both emitted at the same time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 15:28 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <ea650336-bc39-4e8b-8402-cd9fda95da35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407127 |
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:20:09 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: There is still a discussion that you are in and either missed, or that you are just to afraid to answer. Dont be afraid, since they are only words on your computer screen. Here again, in quotes, you. > Your notion that "math = logic" is PREPOSTEROUS. And since > you cannot understand that MATH IS NOT EQUAL TO LOGIC, > we have no basis for discussion. Stay on topic. The topic is about the significance if t' < t. The topic of math = logic can be discussed in its own thread. Start one... > I posted an example of cavemen using LOGIC to create fire, and you > argued that cavemen used MATH to create fire, since in your mind > math = logic. That kind of closed-mindedness leaves no room for > discussion. Stay on topic. The topic is about the significance if t' < t. For your math=logic or caveman logic, that topic can be discussed in its own thread. [And we agreed to disagree on that, so why bring it up again here? We agreed that we are using different definitions or concept of math & logic] Now, back to the topic: t' < t. > the time shown by the clock that was not moved, then LOGICALLY the > clock that was moved MUST have been "running slower" while it was moving. No, your "MUST" does not logically follow. You are jumping to conclusion way to fast. > Logically, there is no other explanation. WRONG. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER EXPLANATIONS, agree? Or you cant think of any? Still no answer? See, it is YOU that is ignoring the conversation of the topic, YOU' YOU still failed to answer. Is it because you are stumped? The fact that t' < t does not mean "runs slow". That is because 'run slow' has not been defined. YOU used that expression w/o defining it, agree? Still no answer? That expression is not needed since we have the much more understandable expression t' < t, agree? Still no answer? Why do you fear answering/discussing these? Try to focus and stay on topic!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 07:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <ace6560f-9d44-46e9-a5c5-1b43d770e620@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407161 |
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:28:54 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:20:09 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > There is still a discussion that you are in and either missed, or that you are just to afraid to answer. Dont be afraid, since they are only words on your computer screen. Here again, in quotes, you. > > > Your notion that "math = logic" is PREPOSTEROUS. And since > > you cannot understand that MATH IS NOT EQUAL TO LOGIC, > > we have no basis for discussion. > > Stay on topic. The topic is about the significance if t' < t. > The topic of math = logic can be discussed in its own thread. Start one... > You make NO SENSE! Sending me emails is a waste of time. I want our discussion to be in PUBLIC, so everyone can see that you MAKE NO SENSE and there's a public record of it. You just mindlessly repeat "The topic is about the significance if t' < t." as if that is supposed to mean something. > > I posted an example of cavemen using LOGIC to create fire, and you > > argued that cavemen used MATH to create fire, since in your mind > > math = logic. That kind of closed-mindedness leaves no room for > > discussion. > > Stay on topic. The topic is about the significance if t' < t. > For your math=logic or caveman logic, that topic can be discussed in its own thread. [And we agreed to disagree on that, so why bring it up again here? We agreed that we are using different definitions or concept of math & logic] > > Now, back to the topic: t' < t. > > > the time shown by the clock that was not moved, then LOGICALLY the > > clock that was moved MUST have been "running slower" while it was moving. > > No, your "MUST" does not logically follow. You are jumping to > conclusion way to fast. > > > Logically, there is no other explanation. > > WRONG. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER EXPLANATIONS, agree? Or you cant think of any? Still no answer? See, it is YOU that is ignoring the conversation of the topic, YOU' YOU still failed to answer. Is it because you are stumped? > If there are "NUMEROUS OTHER EXPLANATIONS," why don't you post a few? Why just make BASELESS CLAIMS? Are you incapable of explaining anything? > The fact that t' < t does not mean "runs slow". That is because 'run slow' has not been defined. YOU used that expression w/o defining it, agree? > Still no answer? > > That expression is not needed since we have the much more understandable expression t' < t, agree? Still no answer? Why do you fear answering/discussing these? > > Try to focus and stay on topic! In order to discuss something, I need to use WORDS and LOGIC. You argue that you do not want to use words and logic. I can make no sense of your "topic." It's just a mathematical equation taken out of context. It has no meaning other than t' < t. What is there to discuss? It seems you are incapable of explaining anything. If you cannot explain anything, how can we discuss anything? You MAKE NO SENSE. You are just wasting my time! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 09:02 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <a2490acc-a50f-4b7b-9f21-f813fc6794ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407352 |
Yes and a wave emission model propagates in a "medium" that doesn't effect the speed of the wave, nor do the waves gain velocity on reflection. Those are the rules. ( ask Michelson) You cannot prove otherwise. Just as YOUR preferred models have waves that travel in a "medium" that doesn't effect light speed, nor do your waves gain velocity on reflection. What's good for you is good for classical. If you don't know what your medium is made of don't criticise any other model that doesn't explain either. Anyways, I've a better idea of how to explain it then you can for your models. The vacuum is a medium that has one property only. Magnetism It can hold at any one point multiple overlapping oscillating magnetic fields. Which is what emr and atoms are "made" of. I think you'll find that although maybe novel, this proposition does not contradict any known confirmed observation made since the earliest days of scientific observation. Semi-Toroidal magnetic medium https://goo.gl/photos/gxr2aUYEiZPL3H5T6 https://goo.gl/photos/W4Ytao3dwixWhwZg9 https://goo.gl/photos/FtfNNQAL8xSSGEsR8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 09:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <a50464bd-2f74-48b0-b9a8-1e7884018485@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407352 |
Yes and a wave emission model propagates in a "medium" that doesn't effect the speed of the wave, nor do the waves gain velocity on reflection. Those are the rules. ( ask Michelson) You cannot prove otherwise. Just as YOUR preferred models have waves that travel in a "medium" that doesn't effect light speed, nor do your waves gain velocity on reflection. What's good for you is good for classical. If you don't know what your medium is made of don't criticise any other model that doesn't explain either. Anyways, I've a better idea of how to explain it then you can for your models. The vacuum is a medium that has one property only. Magnetism It can hold at any one point multiple overlapping oscillating magnetic fields. Which is what emr and atoms are "made" of. I think you'll find that although maybe novel, this proposition does not contradict any known confirmed observation made since the earliest days of scientific observation. Semi-Toroidal magnetic medium https://goo.gl/photos/gxr2aUYEiZPL3H5T6 https://goo.gl/photos/W4Ytao3dwixWhwZg9 https://goo.gl/photos/FtfNNQAL8xSSGEsR8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 17:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <5bd8e279-b588-4122-a662-61e1a0e4022c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407352 |
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:34:12 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:28:54 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > Stay on topic. The topic is about the significance if t' < t. > > The topic of math = logic can be discussed in its own thread. > > You make NO SENSE! Sending me emails is a waste of time. I want > our discussion to be in PUBLIC, so everyone can see that you MAKE > NO SENSE and there's a public record of it. ??? This is not by email. This discussion IS PUBLIC. Its on Google groups. EVERYONE sees it. This conversation the ones you had with Tom and all the others are all PUBLIC, for all to see. My gawd you are confused. > You just mindlessly repeat "The topic is about the significance > of t' < t." as if that is supposed to mean something. That was the topic. > > WRONG. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER EXPLANATIONS, agree? Or > > you cant think of any? Still no answer? > > If there are "NUMEROUS OTHER EXPLANATIONS," why don't you post a few? > Why just make BASELESS CLAIMS? Are you incapable of explaining anything? Of course I know many other explanations as to why we empirically get t'<t. I asked to see if *you* knew of any others. Looks like you dont, thereby further showing is that you are seriously lacking in the history and in the physics of Physics. I will give you other explanations as soon as you do your part, in answering the questions posed to you beforehand. If you want us to answer your questions, then it would be nice of you to answer the ones we asked you! > > The fact that t' < t does not mean "runs slow". That is > > because 'run slow' has not been defined. YOU used that > > expression w/o defining it, agree? > > Still no answer? And still no answer? That is an important question...I await your answer. > > That expression is not needed since we have the much more > > understandable expression t' < t, agree? Still no answer? This is directly related to the above question that you refuse to answer... > In order to discuss something, I need to use WORDS and LOGIC. > You argue that you do not want to use words and logic. On the contrary. I'm directly asking you to clear up the meaning of the words *you* invoked. Yet, you refuse to explain/define your words. How does the empirical fact of t'<t imply the expression 'run slow' ? What is the definition, or explain the meaning of, 'run slow'. > I can make no sense of your "topic." It's just a mathematical > equation taken out of context. It has no meaning other than t' < t. > What is there to discuss? I asked above. Here it is again. The topic is: Given the empirical fact that t' < t (meaning that some experiments show that when clocks reunite, one indicates a lesser value than the other), how does this imply that one ran slower than the other? To answer this, one must first explain/define the meaning of 'ran slower'. And once defined, does it matter, in the sense that, will it change the empirical fact that t' < t ? If it doesnt, then why invoke new expressions as 'run slower', if that expression has no consequences on the experiments, nor any consequences on the prediction of the theories (relativity in our case). > If you cannot explain anything, how can we discuss anything? > You MAKE NO SENSE. Thats the problem...someone who does not have sufficient knowledge & understandings, will not see nor understand explanations. That is where you are stuck at. You invoke expressions that YOU don't understand, or wont even explain, which stagnates the discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 23:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <214d7985-cd7f-4fc7-98dd-bbbf01a11643@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407449 |
W dniu środa, 1 lutego 2017 02:38:42 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > Given the empirical fact that t' < t (meaning that some experiments show that when clocks reunite, one indicates a lesser value than the other) A lie, as expected from stupid, fanatic shit. And here are real clocks an their real values. http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 07:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <c82dac8d-22e6-4d8f-b363-bceb2d0eb145@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407470 |
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:19:20 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 1 lutego 2017 02:38:42 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > > > Given the empirical fact that t' < t (meaning that some experiments > > show that when clocks reunite, one indicates a lesser value than > > the other) > > A lie, I have two watches here. One indicates 11:01 and the other 11:03. One has a lesser value than the other. But you, you are a reality denier, and you cant accept that two numbers may differ. You cry in a fit when you see that 1 < 2. No wonder why you fail at the most basic math problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 07:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <7c0588c5-5441-4dad-bf34-7507bb90d650@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407449 |
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:38:42 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:34:12 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:28:54 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > > > > > > Stay on topic. The topic is about the significance if t' < t. > > > The topic of math = logic can be discussed in its own thread. > > > > You make NO SENSE! Sending me emails is a waste of time. I want > > our discussion to be in PUBLIC, so everyone can see that you MAKE > > NO SENSE and there's a public record of it. > > ??? This is not by email. This discussion IS PUBLIC. Its on Google groups. EVERYONE sees it. This conversation the ones you had with Tom and all the others are all PUBLIC, for all to see. My gawd you are confused. > Are you claiming that you did not send me an email at 9:20 PM on January 30 with the subject "Private message regarding: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...)" which said: "Why dont YOU respond to Rotchm's posts? "He asked you a few simple questions and you repeatedly sulked away. A discussion goes two ways. But if you refuse to discuss and only listen to yourself, you will forever be trapped in your own fantasy world, your own page." The return address had "rotchm" in it. Are you claiming it was someone impersonating you? Or is it you who is confused? > > You just mindlessly repeat "The topic is about the significance > > of t' < t." as if that is supposed to mean something. > > That was the topic. > So, if the topic is "2 is less than 3," what is the significance of that? Please limit your answer to 500 words. > > > WRONG. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER EXPLANATIONS, agree? Or > > > you cant think of any? Still no answer? > > > > If there are "NUMEROUS OTHER EXPLANATIONS," why don't you post a few? > > Why just make BASELESS CLAIMS? Are you incapable of explaining anything? > > Of course I know many other explanations as to why we empirically get t'<t. > I asked to see if *you* knew of any others. Looks like you dont, thereby further showing is that you are seriously lacking in the history and in the physics of Physics. I will give you other explanations as soon as you do your part, in answering the questions posed to you beforehand. If you want us to answer your questions, then it would be nice of you to answer the ones we asked you! > Your question seems to be something you learned by rote in school. It seems like your teacher asked, "What is the significance of t'<t?" And the class was expected to chant some memorized answer. And you expect that I'm supposed to know what memorized answer you learned to chant by rote? > > > > The fact that t' < t does not mean "runs slow". That is > > > because 'run slow' has not been defined. YOU used that > > > expression w/o defining it, agree? > > > Still no answer? > > And still no answer? That is an important question...I await your answer. > You're going to have to wait forever, since you make no sense. I cannot answer a question that makes no sense to me. You seem to expect me to figure out what you are talking about, instead of you explaining yourself. I don't give a damn what you are talking about. If you can be bothered to explain yourself, this discussion has no purpose. > > > > That expression is not needed since we have the much more > > > understandable expression t' < t, agree? Still no answer? > > This is directly related to the above question that you refuse to answer... > > > In order to discuss something, I need to use WORDS and LOGIC. > > You argue that you do not want to use words and logic. > > On the contrary. I'm directly asking you to clear up the meaning of the words *you* invoked. Yet, you refuse to explain/define your words. > > How does the empirical fact of t'<t imply the expression 'run slow' ? t'<t BY ITSELF does NOT imply the "expression 'run slow." And no one ever said it did. > What is the definition, or explain the meaning of, 'run slow'. > To "run slow" means (1) that something that runs is running slower than the standard for running, (2) that one clock ticks at a slower rate that the other. In the case of time dilation, a clock that is closer to the earth than another clock "runs slower" than the higher clock. I.e., it ticks at a slower rate. And that means that time passes at a slower rate for the lower clock than the higher clock. > > > I can make no sense of your "topic." It's just a mathematical > > equation taken out of context. It has no meaning other than t' < t. > > What is there to discuss? > > I asked above. Here it is again. The topic is: > > Given the empirical fact that t' < t (meaning that some experiments show that when clocks reunite, one indicates a lesser value than the other), how does this imply that one ran slower than the other? To answer this, one must first explain/define the meaning of 'ran slower'. And once defined, does it matter, in the sense that, will it change the empirical fact that t' < t ? > If it doesnt, then why invoke new expressions as 'run slower', if that expression has no consequences on the experiments, nor any consequences on the prediction of the theories (relativity in our case). > What is so difficult for you to understand? Einstein explained it at the bottom of page 10 in his 1905 paper: "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is MOVED with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock MOVED from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by 1 2 tv2/c2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." In other words, if you have two clocks that are synchronous, and you move one of them, the clock that was moved will "lag behind" the clock that was not moved, BECAUSE THE MOVING CLOCK RAN SLOWER WHILE MOVING. > > > If you cannot explain anything, how can we discuss anything? > > You MAKE NO SENSE. > > Thats the problem...someone who does not have sufficient knowledge & understandings, will not see nor understand explanations. That is where you are stuck at. You invoke expressions that YOU don't understand, or wont even explain, which stagnates the discussion. I explain things over and over and over and over, using different words each time, and you still argue that I do not explain things? What "expressions" do I invoke that you think I do not understand? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 08:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...) |
| Message-ID | <85811432-fa66-44c6-8549-38c732c1c37d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407489 |
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:36:54 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:38:42 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > > ??? This is not by email. This discussion IS PUBLIC. Its on > > Google groups. EVERYONE sees it. This conversation the ones you > > had with Tom and all the others are all PUBLIC, for all to see. > > My gawd you are confused. > > > > Are you claiming that you did not send me an email at 9:20 PM on > January 30 with the subject "Private message regarding: Silver > mirror (was: Moving Clocks Run Slow...)" which said: > > "Why dont YOU respond to Rotchm's posts? I just looked into it. It would seem that for that particular post, it was inadvertently sent privately. Now that that is resolved, do realize that these conversations on sci.physics.relativity are public. Now, back to the topic. > So, if the topic is "2 is less than 3," what is the significance > of that? Please limit your answer to 500 words. I did already. Lets see below if I need to repeat it. > Your question seems to be something you learned by rote in school. > It seems like your teacher asked, "What is the significance of t'<t?" > And the class was expected to chant some memorized answer. And you > expect that I'm supposed to know what memorized answer you learned > to chant by rote? No, it was not asked. It a question to see if you can come up with possible answers, to see your knowledge and deduction skills. I could ask instead a simple highschool math problem, but I strongly doubt that you would succeed in answering it correctly. > > > > The fact that t' < t does not mean "runs slow". That is > > > > because 'run slow' has not been defined. YOU used that > > > > expression w/o defining it, agree? > > > > Still no answer? > > > > And still no answer? That is an important question... > > I await your answer. > > You're going to have to wait forever, since you make no sense. > I cannot answer a question that makes no sense to me. Its very clear: YOU invoked the expression "runs slow". I'm thus asking you to clear up the meaning of that. define it, explain it... > You seem to expect me to figure out what you are talking about, YOU used the expression 'runs slow'... so its up to YOU to explain that expression. > > How does the empirical fact of t'<t imply the expression 'run slow' ? > > t'<t BY ITSELF does NOT imply the "expression 'run slow." > And no one ever said it did. Ok...a step forward. Two clocks are side by side and one indicates a lesser value that the other, i.e. t' < t. No "run slow" in there as you finally agreed to just above. > To "run slow" means (1) that something that runs is running slower > than the standard for running, (2) that one clock ticks at a slower > rate that the other. Ok... another step forward. The question would be then, how does one detect (operational definition) that one clock ticks at a slower rate than the other? Dont answer, just think about it. We can answer that as this conversation goes on... > In the case of time dilation, a clock that is closer to the earth > than another clock "runs slower" than the higher clock. I.e., > it ticks at a slower rate. And that means that time passes at a > slower rate for the lower clock than the higher clock. Ok, here you are straying from the path. What was measured was the *rate of the incoming signal* and NOT a direct comparison with the clock up there. But lets simplify: Forget gravitational TD and look at a scenario where we directly compare two clocks: Send one away and return it. As it arrives back, one indicates a different value. i.e. t' < t. Here, we did NOT compare any rates (as used in your definition above), hence the expression 'runs slow' does not apply. We only compared the *values* as the two clocks coincided. All we can say is t' < t. Nothing about the rates were measured. See the difference in meaning of t' < t & of 'runs slow'? > What is so difficult for you to understand? Einstein explained > it at the bottom of page 10 in his 1905 paper: > > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the > clock at A is MOVED with the velocity v along the line AB to > B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer > synchronize, Meaning, they have different values. > but the clock MOVED from A to B lags behind > the other Meaning t' < t. > which has remained at B by 1 2 tv2/c2 (up to magnitudes of > fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the > journey from A to B." > > In other words, if you have two clocks that are synchronous, > and you move one of them, the clock that was moved will > "lag behind" the clock that was not moved, NO, that's not what is said in E's quote. It is said that as clock A coincides with clock B, the value on A is less than the value on B. As you move A, you are not comparing it to B. Only when they coincide, do you compare their values. We get that A < B. He then coins this as " A lags behind B ". It did not say that the rates differ. it simply says that the *values* differ; t' < t. > BECAUSE THE MOVING CLOCK RAN SLOWER WHILE MOVING. There is no "because"; 'ran slower' does not apply. We are not continuously comparing the two clocks. They are only compared ONCE, at the end as they coincide (yes, they have been set together with values of 0). Your turn...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web