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 12 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 32 Next page →
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 16:21 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <023cf5f6-c886-477f-8b90-42a95b3a6b11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408758 |
El viernes, 10 de febrero de 2017, 17:33:54 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:08:01 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > 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 Why would anyone be interested in measuring, specifically, the speed of light of the light coming from Alpha Centauri? All the different measurements of the speed of light (read the wikipedia article) results in the same result 299792 km/sec +/- some error dependent on the measurement method. The different methods include astronomical, time of flight, electromagnetic constants, cavity resonance and interferometry. Alpha Centaury light travels through vacuum space (as the light of all universe objects) and so there is no logical reason to think its value would be different from the vacuum light speed as measured here on our laboratories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 16:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <a921e8b3-413c-4158-a6dc-e2f7b65f26fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408779 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:21:43 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > El viernes, 10 de febrero de 2017, 17:33:54 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:08:01 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > > > 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 > > Why would anyone be interested in measuring, specifically, the speed of light of the light coming from Alpha Centauri? > > All the different measurements of the speed of light (read the wikipedia article) results in the same result 299792 km/sec +/- some error dependent on the measurement method. The different methods include astronomical, time of flight, electromagnetic constants, cavity resonance and interferometry. > > Alpha Centaury light travels through vacuum space (as the light of all universe objects) and so there is no logical reason to think its value would be different from the vacuum light speed as measured here on our laboratories. You can't just smooth them all through like that. How are we supposed to learn anything if we just took what you said for granted. All these methods (Astronomical, time of flight, electromagnetic constants, cavity resonance, and interferometry are in themselves distinguishable. Why don't we expand on their distinguishability?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 17:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <579d9656-7411-451f-9cad-98884baa623b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408781 |
El viernes, 10 de febrero de 2017, 21:52:07 (UTC-3), John Gogo escribió: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:21:43 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 10 de febrero de 2017, 17:33:54 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:08:01 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > Why would anyone be interested in measuring, specifically, the speed of light of the light coming from Alpha Centauri? > > > > All the different measurements of the speed of light (read the wikipedia article) results in the same result 299792 km/sec +/- some error dependent on the measurement method. The different methods include astronomical, time of flight, electromagnetic constants, cavity resonance and interferometry. > > > > Alpha Centaury light travels through vacuum space (as the light of all universe objects) and so there is no logical reason to think its value would be different from the vacuum light speed as measured here on our laboratories. > > You can't just smooth them all through like that. How are we supposed to learn anything if we just took what you said for granted. All these methods (Astronomical, time of flight, electromagnetic constants, cavity resonance, and interferometry are in themselves distinguishable. Why don't we expand on their distinguishability? If the measured results from all those methods were sensible different, then you could try to research why they are so. But the fact is that all of those methods give a result equal to 299792 km/sec within a small error (which is smaller than 1 km/sec).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 07:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <c12f086c-bf6f-4117-9ac6-feec312cafe8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408779 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:21:43 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > El viernes, 10 de febrero de 2017, 17:33:54 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:08:01 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > > > 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 > > Why would anyone be interested in measuring, specifically, the speed of light of the light coming from Alpha Centauri? > > All the different measurements of the speed of light (read the wikipedia article) results in the same result 299792 km/sec +/- some error dependent on the measurement method. The different methods include astronomical, time of flight, electromagnetic constants, cavity resonance and interferometry. > > Alpha Centaury light travels through vacuum space (as the light of all universe objects) and so there is no logical reason to think its value would be different from the vacuum light speed as measured here on our laboratories. Which laboratory? There is GOOD reason to believe that the speed of light is measured to travel at a different speed in virtually EVERY laboratory. Yes, they all measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 kilometers PER SECOND, but FACTS AND EXPERIMENTS involving time dilation say that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different just about everywhere. And if the length of a second is different in one laboratory versus another laboratory, the speed of light PER SECOND they measure is also different. I just used Alpha Centauri to illustrate the point that we do not have any way of measuring the speed of light coming from ANY star in the universe. If the speed of light IS different in nearly every laboratory on earth, then it is different for nearly every star in the universe. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 10:42 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <b137de1a-a3ad-4d24-ba89-433b0ce5c2d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408815 |
Which laboratory? There is GOOD reason to believe that the speed of light is measured to travel at a different speed in virtually EVERY laboratory. Yes, they all measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 kilometers PER SECOND, but FACTS AND EXPERIMENTS involving time dilation say that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different just about everywhere. And if ... https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCliSRiiRVQuDfgxI_QN_Fmw/search?query=electromagnetics Learn something about electromagnetics !!!!!!!!! It will say,when measured,the speed of light will always be 299792458 m/s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 12:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <11f4491c-5947-4edf-9600-f835c6d159f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408815 |
El sábado, 11 de febrero de 2017, 12:01:17 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:21:43 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 10 de febrero de 2017, 17:33:54 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:08:01 PM UTC-6, paparios wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > Why would anyone be interested in measuring, specifically, the speed of light of the light coming from Alpha Centauri? > > > > All the different measurements of the speed of light (read the wikipedia article) results in the same result 299792 km/sec +/- some error dependent on the measurement method. The different methods include astronomical, time of flight, electromagnetic constants, cavity resonance and interferometry. > > > > Alpha Centaury light travels through vacuum space (as the light of all universe objects) and so there is no logical reason to think its value would be different from the vacuum light speed as measured here on our laboratories. > > Which laboratory? There is GOOD reason to believe that the speed of light is measured to travel at a different speed in virtually EVERY laboratory. Yes, they all measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 kilometers PER SECOND, but FACTS AND EXPERIMENTS involving time dilation say that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different just about everywhere. And if the length of a second is different in one laboratory versus another laboratory, the speed of light PER SECOND they measure is also different. > > I just used Alpha Centauri to illustrate the point that we do not have any way of measuring the speed of light coming from ANY star in the universe. If the speed of light IS different in nearly every laboratory on earth, then it is different for nearly every star in the universe. > > Ed Well, it is clear you know nothing about how physicists measure things, or how laboratories are used. In our lab we can, for sure, measure the speed of light using the interferometry methods. Do we actually measure the speed of light? Hell not, as that experiment has been made zillions of times and provides no scientific interest to the physics community. Fact is that the speed of light in vacuum has been measured with m/sec precision and so thinking any star will give a different value is clearly stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:39 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7o0a6$175u$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408733 |
On 2/10/2017 11:15 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > 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." Already did. See the link from pdg.lbl.gov. As I said, your ability to research the measurements is pretty awful. Try scholar.google.com with search term: astronomical measurement speed of light. See more than 12 results? What dates are they? > 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 > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 09:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <5890c263-d649-4c19-b965-0d238028025b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408860 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:39:21 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2017 11:15 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > 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." > > Already did. See the link from pdg.lbl.gov. > > As I said, your ability to research the measurements is pretty awful. > Try scholar.google.com with search term: astronomical measurement speed > of light. See more than 12 results? What dates are they? I'm not going to dig through a list of IRRELEVANT article to see if I can find something that supports your BELIEFS. If you have a way to measure the speed of light coming from a distant source, DESCRIBE IT. Or cite the article and DESCRIBE or QUOTE how the article says it is done. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 12:20 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <_YqdnR3_uuH-Oj3FnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #408940 |
On 2/12/17 2/12/17 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> If you have a way to measure the speed of light coming from a distant source, DESCRIBE IT.
Much better is to measure the difference in propagation speeds (arrival times)
from distant sources moving differently but known to start together.
A convenient model is that the propagation speed of light from a source moving
with speed v (toward or away from the observer) is c+k*v, and use observations
to determine the value of k.
A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of 10,000
km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines). If the speed of
light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out
in time due to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not
observed, and observations of distant supernovae give k < 5×10−9.
Note that if k were equal to 1, we would not even call them "supernovas", as
their light would straggle in over a period of centuries to millennia and we
would probably not notice them; if we did, we would call them something else
because over time the wavelengths of spectroscopic peaks in their light would
move from short to long wavelengths. Actual supernovas have times of maximum
brightness usually between a few days to a few weeks, and their spectra remain
constant.
Your FANTASY that the speed of the source adds to the speed of emitted light is
just plain wrong. The above is only one of dozens of measurements showing it to
be wrong.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 12:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <df9c664e-3591-4647-baa7-6e90b7f2935d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408945 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:20:26 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/12/17 2/12/17 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > If you have a way to measure the speed of light coming from a distant source, DESCRIBE IT. > > Much better is to measure the difference in propagation speeds (arrival times) > from distant sources moving differently but known to start together. > > A convenient model is that the propagation speed of light from a source moving > with speed v (toward or away from the observer) is c+k*v, and use observations > to determine the value of k. > > A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of 10,000 > km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines). If the speed of > light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out > in time due to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not > observed, and observations of distant supernovae give k < 5×10−9. > > Note that if k were equal to 1, we would not even call them "supernovas", as > their light would straggle in over a period of centuries to millennia and we > would probably not notice them; if we did, we would call them something else > because over time the wavelengths of spectroscopic peaks in their light would > move from short to long wavelengths. Actual supernovas have times of maximum > brightness usually between a few days to a few weeks, and their spectra remain > constant. > > Your FANTASY that the speed of the source adds to the speed of emitted light is > just plain wrong. The above is only one of dozens of measurements showing it to > be wrong. > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > Tom Roberts You are becoming confused or you are fantasizing. NO ONE argued that "the speed of the source adds to the speed of emitted light." I think EVERYONE HERE agrees that you CANNOT add the speed of the source to the speed of light. It's about the ONLY thing we all agree upon. The question was: How do you PRECISELY measure the speed of light from a distant source? They've been calculating approximations since the 1676 when Olaus Roemer used Jupiter's satellites to calculate an APPROXIMATE speed of light as 214,000 kilometers per second. He was off by 85,792 kps or about 7%. Your examples would just provide more approximations. If you want to compare the speed of light from the sun to the speed of light you create in a lab, the difference, if there is any, will probably be less than one kilometer per second. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:27 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7qjva$1be9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408940 |
On 2/12/2017 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:39:21 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 11:15 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> 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." >> >> Already did. See the link from pdg.lbl.gov. >> >> As I said, your ability to research the measurements is pretty awful. >> Try scholar.google.com with search term: astronomical measurement speed >> of light. See more than 12 results? What dates are they? > > I'm not going to dig through a list of IRRELEVANT article to see if I can find something > that supports your BELIEFS. In other words, you're saying you're not going to do the library research that all physicists do as part of their work, and that all physicists students learn to do as part of their studies? You just don't have the time to find the data? Is that it? Then what the hell are you doing making up stuff about time dilation if you don't know what the data are? > > If you have a way to measure the speed of light coming from a distant source, DESCRIBE > IT. Or cite the article and DESCRIBE or QUOTE how the article says it is done. I've given you the references. I had assumed you could read until I discovered that you haven't actually manage to even wade through Einstein's first paper on relativity. Who's problem is that? > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:42 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7i2lp$1gvs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408591 |
On 2/9/2017 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:02:44 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 2/8/17 2/8/17 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the speed of >>> an oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming light as arriving >>> at c. >> >> You are wrong, when one replaces your "ship" with the earth, and realizes that >> this is not any sort of "slow down". >> >> The annual Doppler effect shows that the wavelength of light from distant >> astronomical objects varies as the earth orbits the sun, accurately matching the >> predictions of SR. The same holds for the frequencies of microwave signals from >> distant objects. Combining the two effects shows that the phase speed of light >> in vacuum is always c. >> > > I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, 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. Nor does it have to. You can measure the speed of the light DIRECTLY. > > There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light that you create yourself. FLAT WRONG. You are obviously unaware of the experimental methods. > Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot detect it at two different locations. > If you have a CLUMP of photons traveling together, you sample some of them at the first location, and you sample some more at the next location. There is also angular aberration as a way of measuring the speed of light. There is also using the regularity of a body's orbit as a handle on the speed of light, which is how the speed of light from a distant astronomical body was first measured. You can look it up. There's a half-dozen other methods that you are ignorant of. Please consider the possibility that your limited imagination about how to do things is not a limitation of physicists. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 08:41 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <8fa9c016-1722-43a6-bb9a-eb3063b7477e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408607 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > 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. > > Nor does it have to. You can measure the speed of the light DIRECTLY. > > > > > There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light that you create yourself. > > FLAT WRONG. You are obviously unaware of the experimental methods. > > > Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot detect it at two different locations. > > > > If you have a CLUMP of photons traveling together, you sample some of > them at the first location, and you sample some more at the next location. > Only if you created the "clump of photons" (a.k.a. "pulse") yourself. Otherwise, there is no way to know that the photons were emitted together or WHEN they were emitted. > There is also angular aberration as a way of measuring the speed of light. > APPROXIMATE measurements. > There is also using the regularity of a body's orbit as a handle on the speed of light, which is how the speed of light from a distant astronomical body was first measured. You can look it up. > There's a half-dozen other methods that you are ignorant of. None of those methods are precise enough to settle any issue involving the speed of light from one object versus another. They just provide approximations of the speed of light. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7qj9i$1ace$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408625 |
On 2/9/2017 10:41 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/9/2017 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> Nor does it have to. You can measure the speed of the light DIRECTLY. >> >>> >>> There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light that you create yourself. >> >> FLAT WRONG. You are obviously unaware of the experimental methods. >> >>> Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot detect it at two different locations. >>> >> >> If you have a CLUMP of photons traveling together, you sample some of >> them at the first location, and you sample some more at the next location. >> > > Only if you created the "clump of photons" (a.k.a. "pulse") yourself. Otherwise, > there is no way to know that the photons were emitted together or WHEN they were emitted. As I said, you don't need to know WHEN they were emitted, any more than a police officer has to know when you left the house to know that you are speeding now. All that you need to verify is that the pulse in location A is the same pulse as in location B. This is also a problem easily solved experimentally. You also have to know that the pulse is not spreading in time as it travels or changing speed, which you can determine by sampling in three locations, which is commonly done. Again, Ed, THINK. > >> There is also angular aberration as a way of measuring the speed of light. >> > > APPROXIMATE measurements. No measurement is exact, but it doesn't HAVE to be to distinguish between two candidate predictions. THINK, Ed, THINK. > >> There is also using the regularity of a body's orbit as a handle on the > speed of light, which is how the speed of light from a distant > astronomical body was first measured. You can look it up. > >> There's a half-dozen other methods that you are ignorant of. > > None of those methods are precise enough to settle any issue involving the > speed of light from one object versus another. They just provide approximations > of the speed of light. That is simply NOT TRUE, Ed. If you read the experimental papers, there is considerable attention paid to what the value of the precision of the measured number is. This is often called "systematic and statistical error" and is a standard way of expressing numerically how good that measured number is. The basics of how to determine that number is taught in high-school physics, and of course the professionals learn more sophisticated techniques for that determination. It is a core skill of experimental physics. If you want to know how good the measured numbers are, all you need to do is read the experimental papers AND UNDERSTAND THEM. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <b7fae22d-f42e-4183-bf38-68181a91e20e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408607 |
Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. We cannot precisely measure light coming from some distant star. For all we know, light from every star in the night sky could be coming to us at a slightly different rate. We KNOW the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a universal constant because we can easily detect differences in the speed of light between one lab and another. For some unknown reason, no one has bothered to do so. If the speed of light is measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at the NIST labs in mile-high Boulder, Colorado, and if it is also measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at some lab near sea level, we know from experiments that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different at those two altitudes, so THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALSO BE DIFFERENT. All that is needed is to compare BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at two such locations. For some reason, no one has ever done this and told anyone about it. They just measure the speed of light at their location. And they measure the length of a second without measuring the speed of light at the same location. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:31 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <e4aefc4f-bbc8-4b42-9a0c-71b032addbaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408630 |
I'm getting all kinds of goofy problems which seem to be caused by the length of this thread. So, I just used this comment to start a NEW thread about "Measuring Time and Light." Please post your comments there. On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:23:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error > 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 > 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 > 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 > 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 > 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 > 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 > 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 > 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 > 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 > 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 > 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 > > Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. > > We cannot precisely measure light coming from some distant star. For all we know, light from every star in the night sky could be coming to us at a slightly different rate. > > We KNOW the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a universal constant because we can easily detect differences in the speed of light between one lab and another. For some unknown reason, no one has bothered to do so. > > If the speed of light is measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at the NIST labs in mile-high Boulder, Colorado, and if it is also measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at some lab near sea level, we know from experiments that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different at those two altitudes, so THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALSO BE DIFFERENT. > > All that is needed is to compare BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at two such locations. For some reason, no one has ever done this and told anyone about it. They just measure the speed of light at their location. And they measure the length of a second without measuring the speed of light at the same location. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:41 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <bd2ff0c2-5060-470b-a3a7-9c2cf1f748be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408630 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:23:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error > 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 > 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 > 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 > 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 > 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 > 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 > 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 > 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 > 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 > 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 > 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 > > Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using equipment that emits and measures the light. > > We cannot precisely measure light coming from some distant star. For all we know, light from every star in the night sky could be coming to us at a slightly different rate. > > We KNOW the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a universal constant because we can easily detect differences in the speed of light between one lab and another. For some unknown reason, no one has bothered to do so. > > If the speed of light is measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at the NIST labs in mile-high Boulder, Colorado, and if it is also measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at some lab near sea level, we know from experiments that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different at those two altitudes, so THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALSO BE DIFFERENT. > > All that is needed is to compare BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at two such locations. For some reason, no one has ever done this and told anyone about it. They just measure the speed of light at their location. And they measure the length of a second without measuring the speed of light at the same location. > > Ed I'm getting all kinds of problems on this thread which appear to be due to its length. So, I used the above post to start a new thread titled "Measuring Time and Light." Please post any comments there. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <o7o07m$175u$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408630 |
On 2/9/2017 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > Date Author Method Result(km/s) Error > 1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000 > 1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000 > 1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000 > 1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500 > 1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50 > 1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30 > 1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4 > 1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3 > 1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1 > 1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001 > 1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458 > > Since 1879, the only way we have been measuring the speed of light is in a lab using > equipment that emits and measures the light. Your list is not very good. The list you have only lists the experiments that have improved the accuracy since the last measurement. But there have been MANY measurements in the 20th and 21st century of light from distant sources that are SUFFICIENTLY precise to distinguish between c and c+v. That is the list you did not look for. Here is a list of interest. This is a list of measurements expressed as a limit on photon mass. As you may know, there is a relationship between the limit on the photon mass and the knowledge of the speed of light found in that measurement. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/listings/rpp2016-list-photon.pdf You'll notice that many of those papers (which don't appear in your list above) are from recent astronomical observations. And even THIS list isn't at all comprehensive. What I'm telling you is that your skill in mining the experimental results is rather poor. This may because of your choice of reading material. > > We cannot precisely measure light coming from some distant star. For all we know, > light from every star in the night sky could be coming to us at a slightly different rate. > > We KNOW the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a universal constant because we can easily > detect differences in the speed of light between one lab and another. > For some unknown reason, no one has bothered to do so. > > If the speed of light is measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND at the NIST labs in > mile-high Boulder, Colorado, and if it is also measured at 299,792,458 meters per SECOND > at some lab near sea level, we know from experiments that the LENGTH OF A SECOND is > different at those two altitudes, so THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALSO BE DIFFERENT. No, you don't, because the length of the meter is also different. Basic element of relativity. > > All that is needed is to compare BOTH the speed of light AND the length of a second at > two such locations. For some reason, no one has ever done this and told anyone about it. > They just measure the speed of light at their location. And they measure the length of > a second without measuring the speed of light at the same location. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 17:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <589cebd5$0$17335$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #408607 |
On 2/9/2017 10:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:02:44 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: >>> On 2/8/17 2/8/17 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the >>>> speed of >>>> an oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming light as >>>> arriving >>>> at c. >>> >>> You are wrong, when one replaces your "ship" with the earth, and >>> realizes that >>> this is not any sort of "slow down". >>> >>> The annual Doppler effect shows that the wavelength of light from >>> distant >>> astronomical objects varies as the earth orbits the sun, accurately >>> matching the >>> predictions of SR. The same holds for the frequencies of microwave >>> signals from >>> distant objects. Combining the two effects shows that the phase speed >>> of light >>> in vacuum is always c. >>> >> >> I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, 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. > > Nor does it have to. You can measure the speed of the light DIRECTLY. > >> >> There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light that >> you create yourself. > > FLAT WRONG. You are obviously unaware of the experimental methods. > >> Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot detect it at >> two different locations. >> > > If you have a CLUMP of photons traveling together, you sample some of > them at the first location, and you sample some more at the next location. > > There is also angular aberration as a way of measuring the speed of light. > > There is also using the regularity of a body's orbit as a handle on the > speed of light, which is how the speed of light from a distant > astronomical body was first measured. You can look it up. > > There's a half-dozen other methods that you are ignorant of. > > Please consider the possibility that your limited imagination about how > to do things is not a limitation of physicists. But it certainly is a proven limitation of you, Boinker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 18:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Silver mirror |
| Message-ID | <JbOdnacKDeT7lADFnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #408591 |
On 2/9/17 2/9/17 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:02:44 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 2/8/17 2/8/17 2:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> There is NO evidence that light will slow down to compensate for the >>> speed of an oncoming ship so that the ship will measure the oncoming >>> light as arriving at c. >> >> You are wrong, when one replaces your "ship" with the earth, and realizes >> that this is not any sort of "slow down". >> >> The annual Doppler effect shows that the wavelength of light from distant >> astronomical objects varies as the earth orbits the sun, accurately >> matching the predictions of SR. The same holds for the frequencies of >> microwave signals from distant objects. Combining the two effects shows >> that the phase speed of light in vacuum is always c. >> > > I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, Then you need to educate yourself. > but the Doppler effect just > shows that either the emitting source or the detecting source is moving or > both are moving. It says nothing about the actual speed of light. But the COMBINATION of the two measurements _DOES_ measure how the phase speed of light varies, and the result is: no variation. That is, the wavelength*frequency of such a wave equals its phase speed. The COMBINATION of the annual Doppler effect measurements shows that the vacuum speed of light is c, to an accuracy much better than the orbital speed of the earth. > There is no way to measure the speed of light except for light that you > create yourself. Not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? > Detecting a photon destroys the photon. So, you cannot > detect it at two different locations. Yes. But a light pulse consists of ZILLIONS of photons. You can measure a handful of them here, and another handful over there, and deduce the speed of the pulse from the measurements. You can do this for the pulses of light from a distant pulsar, and measure it speed here on earth. You can also measure the wavelength and frequency of a monochromatic light ray and calculate its phase speed. > Clocks can be OBSERVED to run slow. Not without a SIGNAL from the clock. And the observations you mention are INCAPABLE of distinguishing an effect on the signal from an effect on the clock. You ASSUME it is the clock that is affected, because that is how your personal fantasies behave. But your fantasies are based on your personal IGNORANCE, and your fantasies cannot account for ALL of the observed phenomena, or for how this is modeled in SR/GR. > Anyone with two sufficiently precise > atomic clocks can place them one above the other and OBSERVE that the lower > clock RUNS SLOWER that the higher clock. They are observing SIGNALS from the clocks, and the observation is really due to gravity's effect on the SIGNALS, not the clocks. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web