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 11 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 32 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 18:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589ba813$0$42601$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408404 |
On 2/8/2017 11:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: >> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >> >>> Here is what EINSTEIN wrote: >> ... >>> I'll repeat the important section for you: "light is always propagated >>> in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of >>> the state of motion of the EMITTING body." >>> >>> He says NOTHING any outside observer. >> >> Correct, since such a specification is not needed since it is deduced from what he just said. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." IMPLIES that independent of the *observer*, it will propagate at speed c (meaning, measured as). >> >> In fact, E did not even need to specify "which is independent of >> the state of motion of the EMITTING body." since this too follows form >> >> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." >> >> Once again, you seem to misunderstand what you read. And here its clear and the logical implication is trivial. The above sentence IMPLIES that the SoL will be c for all observers. >> >> >>> The evidence shows that it is CRAP. >> >> Are you denying empirical facts? >> ALL measurements of the speed of light, by any observer, has always given c. >> Hey, you can even test it yourself; the apparatus doenst cost that much, and you can rent nano/pico second clocks. > > Since you EXPLAIN your MISunderstandings in this post, I'll respond. > > If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. > > That doesn't mean that light actually traveled at 1.1c. It just means that equipment used by OBSERVER-1 added his velocity to the velocity of the incoming light due to their converging paths. It is no different than two cars each going 50 mph hitting each other with a COMBINED VELOCITY of 100 mph. > > This is what EXPERIMENTS show. There are NO experiments which show otherwise. > > Anyone who builds or buys or rents or borrows equipment to measure the speed of light will be measuring the speed of light EMITTED by the equipment right next to him. There will be NO MOVING OUTSIDE OBSERVER whose speed will added to c. > > Comprendo? > > Ed > What if I mount an LED in the nose of a bullet and fire the bullet across the room and then measure the speed of the light coming out of the bullet? Do you expect the total velocity of light I measure to be c (speed of light in a vacuum) plus V (speed of bullet out of gun)? If you do you will be disappointed because what you will measure will be just c. The speed of the light sources will NOT repeat NOT ADD TO THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT. Michelson himself measured this many times. It's the primary mistake most people here make. Live with it. Now if you want to explain WHY that is, that is a whole 'nother matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <4e094737-8617-479a-9116-2a3f02ad55c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408479 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:21:57 PM UTC-6, benj wrote: > On 2/8/2017 11:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > >> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > >> > >>> Here is what EINSTEIN wrote: > >> ... > >>> I'll repeat the important section for you: "light is always propagated > >>> in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of > >>> the state of motion of the EMITTING body." > >>> > >>> He says NOTHING any outside observer. > >> > >> Correct, since such a specification is not needed since it is deduced from what he just said. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." IMPLIES that independent of the *observer*, it will propagate at speed c (meaning, measured as). > >> > >> In fact, E did not even need to specify "which is independent of > >> the state of motion of the EMITTING body." since this too follows form > >> > >> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." > >> > >> Once again, you seem to misunderstand what you read. And here its clear and the logical implication is trivial. The above sentence IMPLIES that the SoL will be c for all observers. > >> > >> > >>> The evidence shows that it is CRAP. > >> > >> Are you denying empirical facts? > >> ALL measurements of the speed of light, by any observer, has always given c. > >> Hey, you can even test it yourself; the apparatus doenst cost that much, and you can rent nano/pico second clocks. > > > > Since you EXPLAIN your MISunderstandings in this post, I'll respond. > > > > If light is emitted by Source-A, it will travel at c. If Observer-1 is approaching Source-A at .1c, he will measure the incoming light as arriving at 1.1c. It will be blue shifted. > > > > That doesn't mean that light actually traveled at 1.1c. It just means that equipment used by OBSERVER-1 added his velocity to the velocity of the incoming light due to their converging paths. It is no different than two cars each going 50 mph hitting each other with a COMBINED VELOCITY of 100 mph. > > > > This is what EXPERIMENTS show. There are NO experiments which show otherwise. > > > > Anyone who builds or buys or rents or borrows equipment to measure the speed of light will be measuring the speed of light EMITTED by the equipment right next to him. There will be NO MOVING OUTSIDE OBSERVER whose speed will added to c. > > > > Comprendo? > > > > Ed > > > What if I mount an LED in the nose of a bullet and fire the bullet > across the room and then measure the speed of the light coming out of > the bullet? Do you expect the total velocity of light I measure to be c > (speed of light in a vacuum) plus V (speed of bullet out of gun)? If you > do you will be disappointed because what you will measure will be just > c. The speed of the light sources will NOT repeat NOT ADD TO THE > VELOCITY OF LIGHT. Michelson himself measured this many times. It's the > primary mistake most people here make. Live with it. > > Now if you want to explain WHY that is, that is a whole 'nother matter. I'm not sure who you are addressing this to, Benj. Is it me or rotchm? Your example is about measuring light from an EMITTER, i.e., the bullet. All the experiments confirm that the speed of the EMITTER cannot be added to the speed of light. Regardless of the velocity of the EMITTER, the light it emits will travel at c NOT at c+v. But that has nothing to do with what a MOVING OUTSIDE OBSERVER will see and measure. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 14:14 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7fu7p$7ko$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408395 |
On 2/8/2017 9:33 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:56:12 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/7/2017 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 2/7/2017 4:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who >>>>> appears to teach at Loyola >>>>> Marymount University in Los Angeles. What he is saying about >>>>> Einstein's Second Postulate to his >>>>> Special Theory of Relativity is CRAP. He explains that a lot of >>>>> people disagree with him, but >>>>> he's teaching it anyway. Apparently because it is part of the >>>>> prescribed course. >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BlfD2sDoQ >>>> >>>> Again, notice that you did not have any opportunity to ask van Biezen >>>> your questions. You just call it CRAP and dismiss it. I saw nothing in >>>> that video that was wrong, and he didn't say anything that other people >>>> would disagree with in that 4 minute video. What did you find wrong with >>>> it? Quote the statement you found either in conflict with fact or is >>>> confusing to you? >>>> >>> >>> I stumbled on your web page account of what you heard from van Biezen >>> that you took exception to. You state: "But then Prof. van Biezen goes >>> on to tell his students that Observer-B will not see the light coming >>> toward him at 186,000 miles per second plus the speed of Observer-B's >>> space ship. Somehow, magically, the light will slow down so that >>> Observer-B will see the light coming at him at only 186,000 miles per >>> second. Prof. van Biezen doesn't explain why or how this happens, he >>> just explains that that is how he interprets what Einstein wrote and >>> therefore it must be true." >>> >>> So you reject his statement, you say you disagree with it, but the basis >>> of your disagreement is that you cannot see how this is possible, and so >>> it must be wrong! Furthermore, you insist that because he did not >>> explain (in this four minutes) how it IS possible, then this is further >>> evidence that it is wrong. >>> >>> But what van Biezen did not tell you is that, regardless of how magical >>> this seems, and how much it defies your intuition, this is an >>> EXPERIMENTAL FACT. That is, it has been TESTED in the laboratory that >>> there is a laboratory approaching a source of light at a high velocity, >>> and the speed of light is in fact NOT different than 186,000 mps but is >>> in fact only 186,000 mps. So what Einstein said is in fact in agreement >>> with experimental observation REGARDLESS whether you understand how this >>> is possible or not. >>> >>> This is where your mind separates from that of a physicist. A physicist >>> will say, "If my understanding tells me that X will happen, and I run a >>> measurement and measurement shows that Y instead happens, then it is my >>> understanding that predicted X that is WRONG." You instead take the >>> approach, "Unless someone can explain to me how Y happens, then I refuse >>> to believe that Y actually happened. There must have been some kind of >>> mistake, because I can only see how X would happen." >>> >>> The lesson here is this. First, accept the primacy of experiment, even >>> if the result is astounding and (at the moment) unexplainable. Accept >>> that it is a True Fact. THEN, see if there is a way to explain how it is >>> possible that such a thing happens. >>> >>> Are you willing to start thinking this way? >>> >> >> Furthermore you make another mistake when you claim that Einstein's >> relativity DOES NOT SAY that an observer's motion will not affect the >> speed of the light coming into the observer. You claim that only the >> motion of the source is discussed by Einstein. >> >> Apparently you have not read much by Einstein. I suggest you read the >> first four or five chapters of this book: http://www.bartleby.com/173/ > > If you BELIEVE those chapters say something relevant, QUOTE THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS. > I do not have the time to HUNT for things you should have provided. Sorry, but no. If YOU make the claim that Einstein has never stated something, then it is up to you to have read what he stated before making that claim. What you might have said instead in your critique that would have been more truthful would have been, "I'm not aware that Einstein said anything about the speed of light being c regardless of the motion of the observer. But then again, I've read so little of what Einstein wrote. More to do...." > Besides, MY POINT is that there are many books that are WRONG. > > Here is what EINSTEIN wrote: > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter > be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, > and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the > state of motion of the emitting body." This is indeed what he wrote in ONE short article on special relativity, the first of MANY he wrote on the subject. If you have the expectation that this first article should have been the comprehensive presentation of the entire picture of special relativity, then you have COMPLETELY missed out on how scientific publication happens. I gave you another reference to one other important book by Einstein on the subject, and your response is to say a) you don't have the time to read it, but b) this should not impede you from stating what Einstein says or does not say, and c) this should not impede you from expounding on time dilation before you've even read what the ORIGINATOR of the theory has to say about it??? > > I'll repeat the important section for you: "light is always propagated > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the > state of motion of the EMITTING body." > > He says NOTHING any outside observer. IN THAT PAPER. So? > I see that Postulate translated all over the place to say something > like "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > which is independent of the state of motion of ANY MOVING BODY." That is > CRAP. The evidence shows that it is CRAP. It is NOT crap. It is fully supported by experimental evidence. What happens in real life, as exhibited in experiment, should never be called crap, even if it comes as a terrific surprise to your intuition. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 12:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <a8386af4-1b7f-4458-866b-915f95264acd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408437 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:14:53 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/8/2017 9:33 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:56:12 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/7/2017 4:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 2/7/2017 4:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I recently also watched a video by Professor Michel van Biezen, who > >>>>> appears to teach at Loyola > >>>>> Marymount University in Los Angeles. What he is saying about > >>>>> Einstein's Second Postulate to his > >>>>> Special Theory of Relativity is CRAP. He explains that a lot of > >>>>> people disagree with him, but > >>>>> he's teaching it anyway. Apparently because it is part of the > >>>>> prescribed course. > >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BlfD2sDoQ > >>>> > >>>> Again, notice that you did not have any opportunity to ask van Biezen > >>>> your questions. You just call it CRAP and dismiss it. I saw nothing in > >>>> that video that was wrong, and he didn't say anything that other people > >>>> would disagree with in that 4 minute video. What did you find wrong with > >>>> it? Quote the statement you found either in conflict with fact or is > >>>> confusing to you? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I stumbled on your web page account of what you heard from van Biezen > >>> that you took exception to. You state: "But then Prof. van Biezen goes > >>> on to tell his students that Observer-B will not see the light coming > >>> toward him at 186,000 miles per second plus the speed of Observer-B's > >>> space ship. Somehow, magically, the light will slow down so that > >>> Observer-B will see the light coming at him at only 186,000 miles per > >>> second. Prof. van Biezen doesn't explain why or how this happens, he > >>> just explains that that is how he interprets what Einstein wrote and > >>> therefore it must be true." > >>> > >>> So you reject his statement, you say you disagree with it, but the basis > >>> of your disagreement is that you cannot see how this is possible, and so > >>> it must be wrong! Furthermore, you insist that because he did not > >>> explain (in this four minutes) how it IS possible, then this is further > >>> evidence that it is wrong. > >>> > >>> But what van Biezen did not tell you is that, regardless of how magical > >>> this seems, and how much it defies your intuition, this is an > >>> EXPERIMENTAL FACT. That is, it has been TESTED in the laboratory that > >>> there is a laboratory approaching a source of light at a high velocity, > >>> and the speed of light is in fact NOT different than 186,000 mps but is > >>> in fact only 186,000 mps. So what Einstein said is in fact in agreement > >>> with experimental observation REGARDLESS whether you understand how this > >>> is possible or not. > >>> > >>> This is where your mind separates from that of a physicist. A physicist > >>> will say, "If my understanding tells me that X will happen, and I run a > >>> measurement and measurement shows that Y instead happens, then it is my > >>> understanding that predicted X that is WRONG." You instead take the > >>> approach, "Unless someone can explain to me how Y happens, then I refuse > >>> to believe that Y actually happened. There must have been some kind of > >>> mistake, because I can only see how X would happen." > >>> > >>> The lesson here is this. First, accept the primacy of experiment, even > >>> if the result is astounding and (at the moment) unexplainable. Accept > >>> that it is a True Fact. THEN, see if there is a way to explain how it is > >>> possible that such a thing happens. > >>> > >>> Are you willing to start thinking this way? > >>> > >> > >> Furthermore you make another mistake when you claim that Einstein's > >> relativity DOES NOT SAY that an observer's motion will not affect the > >> speed of the light coming into the observer. You claim that only the > >> motion of the source is discussed by Einstein. > >> > >> Apparently you have not read much by Einstein. I suggest you read the > >> first four or five chapters of this book: http://www.bartleby.com/173/ > > > > If you BELIEVE those chapters say something relevant, QUOTE THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS. > > I do not have the time to HUNT for things you should have provided. > > Sorry, but no. If YOU make the claim that Einstein has never stated > something, then it is up to you to have read what he stated before > making that claim. What you might have said instead in your critique > that would have been more truthful would have been, "I'm not aware that > Einstein said anything about the speed of light being c regardless of > the motion of the observer. But then again, I've read so little of what > Einstein wrote. More to do...." > > > Besides, MY POINT is that there are many books that are WRONG. > > > > Here is what EINSTEIN wrote: > > > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter > > be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, > > and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently > > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated > > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the > > state of motion of the emitting body." > > This is indeed what he wrote in ONE short article on special relativity, > the first of MANY he wrote on the subject. If you have the expectation > that this first article should have been the comprehensive presentation > of the entire picture of special relativity, then you have COMPLETELY > missed out on how scientific publication happens. > > I gave you another reference to one other important book by Einstein on > the subject, and your response is to say a) you don't have the time to > read it, but b) this should not impede you from stating what Einstein > says or does not say, and c) this should not impede you from expounding > on time dilation before you've even read what the ORIGINATOR of the > theory has to say about it??? > > > > > I'll repeat the important section for you: "light is always propagated > > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the > > state of motion of the EMITTING body." > > > > He says NOTHING any outside observer. > > IN THAT PAPER. So? > > > I see that Postulate translated all over the place to say something > > like "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > > which is independent of the state of motion of ANY MOVING BODY." That is > > CRAP. The evidence shows that it is CRAP. > > It is NOT crap. It is fully supported by experimental evidence. What > happens in real life, as exhibited in experiment, should never be called > crap, even if it comes as a terrific surprise to your intuition. More of your endless blather arguing that, if I do not do things your way then I'm doing them wrong. It is a SILLY argument. There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the speed of an oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming light as arriving at c. That notion is not only WRONG, it is STUPID. The evidence says just the opposite. I cite the evidence in the paper I'm writing. It is incontrovertible. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 16:02 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <UfKdnVfRxZ7jCAbFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #408444 |
On 2/8/17 2/8/17 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the speed of > an oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming light as arriving > at c. You are wrong, when one replaces your "ship" with the earth, and realizes that this is not any sort of "slow down". The annual Doppler effect shows that the wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects varies as the earth orbits the sun, accurately matching the predictions of SR. The same holds for the frequencies of microwave signals from distant objects. Combining the two effects shows that the phase speed of light in vacuum is always c. > That notion is not only WRONG, it is STUPID. Only to idiots like yourself who keep attempting to discuss modern physics without understanding or studying it. Your basic word choice exposes your ignorance: in SR this is not any sort of light "slow down", it is rather variations in the geometrical relationships among the measuring instruments that make instruments moving inertially to always measure c for the vacuum speed of light. This is just the way the world is observed to work, regardless of how "stupid" YOU think it is -- YOUR STUPIDITY CANNOT CHANGE THIS. This is the very same mistake you make in insisting that "moving clocks run slow", when they don't really do so. The wrongness and the stupidity are all YOURS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 14:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <05fa7241-3d80-4c19-be21-d48eabb1e21a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408458 |
Tom Roberts, why do you continually abuse yourself with Ed Lake?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 18:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589bac3d$0$10613$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408464 |
On 2/8/2017 5:35 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Tom Roberts, why do you continually abuse yourself with Ed Lake? > He's trying to grow hair on his palms...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 22:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <c9f5d73c-2d34-43cf-8b7d-ee34cd3b31b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408458 |
W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 23:02:44 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Only to idiots like yourself who keep attempting to discuss modern physics > without understanding or studying it. Your basic word choice exposes your > ignorance: in SR this is not any sort of light "slow down", it is rather > variations in the geometrical relationships among the measuring instruments that > make instruments moving inertially to always measure c for the vacuum speed of > light. This is just the way the world is observed to work, regardless of how > "stupid" YOU think it is -- YOUR STUPIDITY CANNOT CHANGE THIS. > > This is the very same mistake you make in insisting that "moving > clocks run slow", when they don't really do so. The wrongness and > the stupidity are all YOURS. And if you can't see how beautiful the new clothes of emperor are - you're obviously stupid...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <5abf20e1-3b1e-4862-b957-3310f3b37c36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408458 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:02:44 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/8/17 2/8/17 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the speed of > > an oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming light as arriving > > at c. > > You are wrong, when one replaces your "ship" with the earth, and realizes that > this is not any sort of "slow down". > > The annual Doppler effect shows that the wavelength of light from distant > astronomical objects varies as the earth orbits the sun, accurately matching the > predictions of SR. The same holds for the frequencies of microwave signals from > distant objects. Combining the two effects shows that the phase speed of light > in vacuum is always c. > I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, but the Doppler effect just shows that either the emitting source or the detecting source is moving or both are moving. It says nothing about the actual speed of light. There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light that you create yourself. Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot detect it at two different locations. > > That notion is not only WRONG, it is STUPID. > > Only to idiots like yourself who keep attempting to discuss modern physics > without understanding or studying it. Your basic word choice exposes your > ignorance: in SR this is not any sort of light "slow down", it is rather > variations in the geometrical relationships among the measuring instruments that > make instruments moving inertially to always measure c for the vacuum speed of > light. This is just the way the world is observed to work, regardless of how > "stupid" YOU think it is -- YOUR STUPIDITY CANNOT CHANGE THIS. > > This is the very same mistake you make in insisting that "moving > clocks run slow", when they don't really do so. The wrongness and > the stupidity are all YOURS. > > Tom Roberts Name calling doesn't help your arguments. It just shows you cannot discuss the subject intelligently. Clocks can be OBSERVED to run slow. Anyone with two sufficiently precise atomic clocks can place them one above the other and OBSERVE that the lower clock RUNS SLOWER that the higher clock. Period. The NIST did it in 2010 and wrote a paper about it. You inexplicably rationalize that they were incompetent and didn't do what they said they did. Do you believe that every scientist demonstrates incompetence if they use atomic clocks to demonstrate that time dilation causes clocks to run slow? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <395c0855-41e1-490f-a13a-2b6174adb928@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408591 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:08:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light > that you create yourself. Is that a deliberate lie on your part, or you are just ignorant? How did Reomer "measure" the speed of light? He went to jupiter? Astrophysicist regularly observe & measure the speed of incoming light from cosmic events; they did not create those cosmic events! > Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot detect > it at two different locations. Irrelevant, since there are different ways to measure the SoL. You dont need to detect a particular photon, but just a few out of an ensemble of photons. What you are saying is that if you are at the movies, then only you get to see the movie and everyone else sees a blank screen, since only you receive the photons that you are receiving. That is what you are saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 08:11 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <8c1a26c6-6854-495f-a640-3aa0672d7142@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408601 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:08:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light > > that you create yourself. > > Is that a deliberate lie on your part, or you are just ignorant? > How did Reomer "measure" the speed of light? He went to jupiter? > Astrophysicist regularly observe & measure the speed of incoming > light from cosmic events; they did not create those cosmic events! > Okay. I should have said "There is no way to PRECISELY measure the speed of light except for light that you create yourself." You can get APPROXIMATIONS the way Roemer did. > > Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot detect > > it at two different locations. > > Irrelevant, since there are different ways to measure the SoL. > You dont need to detect a particular photon, but just a few out of an ensemble of photons. What you are saying is that if you are at the movies, > then only you get to see the movie and everyone else sees a blank screen, since only you receive the photons that you are receiving. That is what you are saying. An "ensemble of photons" is called a pulse. Yes, you can measure PULSES of light if you know the exact timing of those pulses. However, the only way to know WHEN THE PULSE WAS CREATED is to create the pulse yourself. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7kecv$15m0$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408615 |
On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > An "ensemble of photons" is called a pulse. Yes, you can measure PULSES of light if > you know the exact timing of those pulses. However, the only way to know WHEN THE > PULSE WAS CREATED is to create the pulse yourself. But you don't have to know when it was created to measure the speed. A pulse from a pulsar came from a long way away. To measure the speed of the light in that pulse, I need to sample it in two places ON EARTH such that the same pulse passes through both. C'mon, Ed. THINK. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 09:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <d7f25bec-be38-4969-b248-f2a05c7ac9ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408719 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:14 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > An "ensemble of photons" is called a pulse. Yes, you can measure PULSES of light if > > you know the exact timing of those pulses. However, the only way to know WHEN THE > > PULSE WAS CREATED is to create the pulse yourself. > > But you don't have to know when it was created to measure the speed. > A pulse from a pulsar came from a long way away. To measure the speed of > the light in that pulse, I need to sample it in two places ON EARTH such > that the same pulse passes through both. > > C'mon, Ed. THINK. And where would those "two places ON EARTH" be? Describe the testing setup. One sampling spot in Georgia and the other in Texas? Or are you talking about one sampling spot at the top of an observatory and the other at the bottom of an observatory? If you "sample" the incoming photons at the top of a three meter tube and at the bottom of a three meter tube, what's to prevent a photon from the START of the pulse hitting the bottom of the tube first and then a photon from the END of the pulse hitting the top of the tube? Wouldn't you get a reading that the light was traveling backwards? Even if there is some way to measure the speed of light from a pulsar, that doesn't help you measure the speed of light from some ordinary star. Pulsars are unusual celestial objects not ordinary celestial objects. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7o09j$175u$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408732 |
On 2/10/2017 11:07 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:14 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> An "ensemble of photons" is called a pulse. Yes, you can measure PULSES of light if >>> you know the exact timing of those pulses. However, the only way to know WHEN THE >>> PULSE WAS CREATED is to create the pulse yourself. >> >> But you don't have to know when it was created to measure the speed. >> A pulse from a pulsar came from a long way away. To measure the speed of >> the light in that pulse, I need to sample it in two places ON EARTH such >> that the same pulse passes through both. >> >> C'mon, Ed. THINK. > > And where would those "two places ON EARTH" be? Describe the testing setup. > > One sampling spot in Georgia and the other in Texas? Or are you talking about one > sampling spot at the top of an observatory and the other at the bottom of an observatory? > > If you "sample" the incoming photons at the top of a three meter tube and at the bottom > of a three meter tube, what's to prevent a photon from the START of the pulse hitting the > bottom of the tube first and then a photon from the END of the pulse hitting the top of > the tube? Wouldn't you get a reading that the light was traveling backwards? Well, more like 40 or 50 meter high observatory deck. If you place three scintillators at top, middle, and bottom of this set-up, it's a simple tracking exercise to sample a single pulse from top to bottom. It is EXACTLY the same exercise as measuring the speed of sound from a distant sound source. You don't need to know the time of emission of the sound. All you need to do is sample the sound in a line at two or three locations well away from the source. THINK, Ed, THINK. > > Even if there is some way to measure the speed of light from a pulsar, that doesn't > help you measure the speed of light from some ordinary star. Pulsars are unusual > celestial objects not ordinary celestial objects. Why does that matter? Are you going to suggest that light from unusual celestial objects travels at a different speed than light from an ordinary terrestrial object? THINK, Ed, THINK. Here's another test that's done: There's a signal from a man-made, deep-space probe that is no longer anywhere near the surface of the earth. In March, the Earth is approaching that probe at 30 km/s. In October, the Earth is receding from that probe at 30 km/s. If the speed of the light relative to the observer were c+v and c-v in those two cases, then you'd see a shift in the observed vs. location of the probe, because it would be relatively advanced in the first case and delayed in the second case. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 09:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <caba8f08-6833-4dce-829c-7fc7b7f6038d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408858 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:39:03 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2017 11:07 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:14 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> An "ensemble of photons" is called a pulse. Yes, you can measure PULSES of light if > >>> you know the exact timing of those pulses. However, the only way to know WHEN THE > >>> PULSE WAS CREATED is to create the pulse yourself. > >> > >> But you don't have to know when it was created to measure the speed. > >> A pulse from a pulsar came from a long way away. To measure the speed of > >> the light in that pulse, I need to sample it in two places ON EARTH such > >> that the same pulse passes through both. > >> > >> C'mon, Ed. THINK. > > > > And where would those "two places ON EARTH" be? Describe the testing setup. > > > > One sampling spot in Georgia and the other in Texas? Or are you talking about one > > sampling spot at the top of an observatory and the other at the bottom of an observatory? > > > > If you "sample" the incoming photons at the top of a three meter tube and at the bottom > > of a three meter tube, what's to prevent a photon from the START of the pulse hitting the > > bottom of the tube first and then a photon from the END of the pulse hitting the top of > > the tube? Wouldn't you get a reading that the light was traveling backwards? > > Well, more like 40 or 50 meter high observatory deck. If you place three > scintillators at top, middle, and bottom of this set-up, it's a simple > tracking exercise to sample a single pulse from top to bottom. It is > EXACTLY the same exercise as measuring the speed of sound from a distant > sound source. You don't need to know the time of emission of the sound. > All you need to do is sample the sound in a line at two or three > locations well away from the source. THINK, Ed, THINK. > You need to learn more about how telescopes work. They COLLECT photons that arrive at different points on the lens and FOCUS (redirect) the photons to form an image. PLUS, astronomers leave the lens open for HOURS in order to collect enough photons to register as an image. So, how do you fantasize your "light speed detector" will work? As I said, how do you know that a photon you detect was emitted at the same time as another photon you detect? Using sound waves as an example shows that you don't understand the PROBLEM. The PROBLEM is that light from a distant star is arriving as individual photons that you need to COLLECT in order to make an image or do an analysis. The image results from photons that could have been emitted HOURS apart. > > > > Even if there is some way to measure the speed of light from a pulsar, that doesn't > > help you measure the speed of light from some ordinary star. Pulsars are unusual > > celestial objects not ordinary celestial objects. > > Why does that matter? Are you going to suggest that light from unusual > celestial objects travels at a different speed than light from an > ordinary terrestrial object? THINK, Ed, THINK. > > Here's another test that's done: There's a signal from a man-made, > deep-space probe that is no longer anywhere near the surface of the > earth. In March, the Earth is approaching that probe at 30 km/s. In > October, the Earth is receding from that probe at 30 km/s. If the speed > of the light relative to the observer were c+v and c-v in those two > cases, then you'd see a shift in the observed vs. location of the probe, > because it would be relatively advanced in the first case and delayed in > the second case. Yup. And that is what they see. Plus, they have so-called "anomalies" where they don't really understand what is going on. To avoid those problems, they generally use the Sun as the theoretical point from where they measure everything. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:24 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7qjqg$1be9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408938 |
On 2/12/2017 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:39:03 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 11:07 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:14 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> An "ensemble of photons" is called a pulse. Yes, you can measure PULSES of light if >>>>> you know the exact timing of those pulses. However, the only way to know WHEN THE >>>>> PULSE WAS CREATED is to create the pulse yourself. >>>> >>>> But you don't have to know when it was created to measure the speed. >>>> A pulse from a pulsar came from a long way away. To measure the speed of >>>> the light in that pulse, I need to sample it in two places ON EARTH such >>>> that the same pulse passes through both. >>>> >>>> C'mon, Ed. THINK. >>> >>> And where would those "two places ON EARTH" be? Describe the testing setup. >>> >>> One sampling spot in Georgia and the other in Texas? Or are you talking about one >>> sampling spot at the top of an observatory and the other at the bottom of an observatory? >>> >>> If you "sample" the incoming photons at the top of a three meter tube and at the bottom >>> of a three meter tube, what's to prevent a photon from the START of the pulse hitting the >>> bottom of the tube first and then a photon from the END of the pulse hitting the top of >>> the tube? Wouldn't you get a reading that the light was traveling backwards? >> >> Well, more like 40 or 50 meter high observatory deck. If you place three >> scintillators at top, middle, and bottom of this set-up, it's a simple >> tracking exercise to sample a single pulse from top to bottom. It is >> EXACTLY the same exercise as measuring the speed of sound from a distant >> sound source. You don't need to know the time of emission of the sound. >> All you need to do is sample the sound in a line at two or three >> locations well away from the source. THINK, Ed, THINK. >> > > You need to learn more about how telescopes work. I'm not talking about telescopes you idiot. I'm talking about towers with scintillators stuck at various heights. That's not a telescope like what's at Keck. Why can't you look these up? Ever used scholar.google.com? Ever used a science library? > They COLLECT photons that arrive at different points on the lens and > FOCUS (redirect) the photons to form an image. PLUS, astronomers leave > the lens open for HOURS in order to collect enough photons to register as an image. > > So, how do you fantasize your "light speed detector" will work? As I said, how do > you know that a photon you detect was emitted at the same time as another photon > you detect? Using sound waves as an example shows that you don't understand the > PROBLEM. The PROBLEM is that light from a distant star is arriving as individual > photons that you need to COLLECT in order to make an image or do an analysis. > The image results from photons that could have been emitted HOURS apart. Not in a detector that detects the passage of a pulse and has an opening gate of a few microseconds, not hours. Catch up, Ed. > >>> >>> Even if there is some way to measure the speed of light from a pulsar, that doesn't >>> help you measure the speed of light from some ordinary star. Pulsars are unusual >>> celestial objects not ordinary celestial objects. >> >> Why does that matter? Are you going to suggest that light from unusual >> celestial objects travels at a different speed than light from an >> ordinary terrestrial object? THINK, Ed, THINK. >> >> Here's another test that's done: There's a signal from a man-made, >> deep-space probe that is no longer anywhere near the surface of the >> earth. In March, the Earth is approaching that probe at 30 km/s. In >> October, the Earth is receding from that probe at 30 km/s. If the speed >> of the light relative to the observer were c+v and c-v in those two >> cases, then you'd see a shift in the observed vs. location of the probe, >> because it would be relatively advanced in the first case and delayed in >> the second case. > > Yup. And that is what they see. No, it is NOT what they see. Look up a paper on tests of ballistic theory of light by de Sitter, where he reviews the data of what's actually seen. > Plus, they have so-called "anomalies" > where they don't really understand what is going on. To avoid those problems, > they generally use the Sun as the theoretical point from where they measure everything. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 07:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7ked8$15m0$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408615 |
On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > Okay. I should have said "There is no way to PRECISELY measure the speed of light except > for light that you create yourself." You can get APPROXIMATIONS the way Roemer did. Roemer's number was rough only because it was done in 1676!! You can get a really good number today from a distant source. You should perhaps check out some of the more recent experimental results. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 09:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <f3bb6e7d-8a8d-48e4-b392-ac0c0b6440fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408720 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Okay. I should have said "There is no way to PRECISELY measure the speed of light except > > for light that you create yourself." You can get APPROXIMATIONS the way Roemer did. > > Roemer's number was rough only because it was done in 1676!! > You can get a really good number today from a distant source. You should > perhaps check out some of the more recent experimental results. Please provide a link to some "recent experimental results." They settled on 299,752,458 meters per SECOND as the speed of light in 1983. Have they found any different results in recent experiments? Have some RECENT experiments done anything but confirmed the 1983 number is what they get in their lab using their length of a second? What experiments? Some you IMAGINE someone performed? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 10:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <b1c9a160-c696-4748-91a0-81af53c7b4aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408733 |
El viernes, 10 de febrero de 2017, 14:16:00 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > Okay. I should have said "There is no way to PRECISELY measure the speed of light except > > > for light that you create yourself." You can get APPROXIMATIONS the way Roemer did. > > > > Roemer's number was rough only because it was done in 1676!! > > You can get a really good number today from a distant source. You should > > perhaps check out some of the more recent experimental results. > > Please provide a link to some "recent experimental results." They settled on 299,752,458 meters per SECOND as the speed of light in 1983. Have they found any different results in recent experiments? Have some RECENT experiments done anything but confirmed the 1983 number is what they get in their lab using their length of a second? What experiments? Some you IMAGINE someone performed? > > Ed Stop the nonsense. Even in College labs you can nowdays measure the speed of light. Even Michelson did it in the 1930, as seen in the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement) to a 11km/s accuracy: "A method of measuring the speed of light is to measure the time needed for light to travel to a mirror at a known distance and back. This is the working principle behind the Fizeau–Foucault apparatus developed by Hippolyte Fizeau and Léon Foucault. The setup as used by Fizeau consists of a beam of light directed at a mirror 8 kilometres (5 mi) away. On the way from the source to the mirror, the beam passes through a rotating cogwheel. At a certain rate of rotation, the beam passes through one gap on the way out and another on the way back, but at slightly higher or lower rates, the beam strikes a tooth and does not pass through the wheel. Knowing the distance between the wheel and the mirror, the number of teeth on the wheel, and the rate of rotation, the speed of light can be calculated. The method of Foucault replaces the cogwheel by a rotating mirror. Because the mirror keeps rotating while the light travels to the distant mirror and back, the light is reflected from the rotating mirror at a different angle on its way out than it is on its way back. From this difference in angle, the known speed of rotation and the distance to the distant mirror the speed of light may be calculated. Nowadays, using oscilloscopes with time resolutions of less than one nanosecond, the speed of light can be directly measured by timing the delay of a light pulse from a laser or an LED reflected from a mirror. This method is less precise (with errors of the order of 1%) than other modern techniques, but it is sometimes used as a laboratory experiment in college physics classes."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 12:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <c12a521b-13e1-4bf5-a772-4cc6e26b6bac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408738 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:08:01 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > El viernes, 10 de febrero de 2017, 14:16:00 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 2/9/2017 10:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > Okay. I should have said "There is no way to PRECISELY measure the speed of light except > > > > for light that you create yourself." You can get APPROXIMATIONS the way Roemer did. > > > > > > Roemer's number was rough only because it was done in 1676!! > > > You can get a really good number today from a distant source. You should > > > perhaps check out some of the more recent experimental results. > > > > Please provide a link to some "recent experimental results." They settled on 299,752,458 meters per SECOND as the speed of light in 1983. Have they found any different results in recent experiments? Have some RECENT experiments done anything but confirmed the 1983 number is what they get in their lab using their length of a second? What experiments? Some you IMAGINE someone performed? > > > > Ed > > Stop the nonsense. Even in College labs you can nowdays measure the speed of light. No one said otherwise. Anyone can use equipment to measure the speed of light THEY CREATE. The argument is about measuring the speed of light coming from distant sources - like stars and comets. Is the speed of light you create in a lab the same as the speed of light coming from the Sun? > > Even Michelson did it in the 1930, as seen in the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement) to a 11km/s accuracy: > > "A method of measuring the speed of light is to measure the time needed for light to travel to a mirror at a known distance and back. This is the working principle behind the Fizeau–Foucault apparatus developed by Hippolyte Fizeau and Léon Foucault. > > The setup as used by Fizeau consists of a beam of light directed at a mirror 8 kilometres (5 mi) away. On the way from the source to the mirror, the beam passes through a rotating cogwheel. At a certain rate of rotation, the beam passes through one gap on the way out and another on the way back, but at slightly higher or lower rates, the beam strikes a tooth and does not pass through the wheel. Knowing the distance between the wheel and the mirror, the number of teeth on the wheel, and the rate of rotation, the speed of light can be calculated. > > The method of Foucault replaces the cogwheel by a rotating mirror. Because the mirror keeps rotating while the light travels to the distant mirror and back, ... Everyone knows this. You misunderstood the argument. How do you measure the speed of light coming from the Alpha Centauri? You can't do it with rotating mirrors or gears. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web