Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #418393 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-06 07:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-07 12:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 538 — 51 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:41 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-06 16:43 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 08:08 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 08:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:44 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:25 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-06 08:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-06 15:56 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 08:57 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-06 16:27 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 09:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Kého Resované <knau@wjf2op.we> - 2017-05-06 16:50 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-07 01:56 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 09:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-06 10:06 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 10:29 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 11:00 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 12:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 13:44 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 14:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 15:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 09:33 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 18:47 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 19:07 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 19:57 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 18:03 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 19:34 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:40 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 10:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 17:46 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 10:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 19:55 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 12:04 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 12:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 13:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 13:06 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 13:10 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 13:38 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 13:48 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math polyfrag@gmail.com - 2017-05-07 14:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 23:51 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 09:04 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-08 09:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-08 10:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 13:33 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 21:01 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 22:39 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 13:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 23:29 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 20:54 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 07:51 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-06 12:06 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 13:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-06 14:26 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 09:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 19:09 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:36 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 19:51 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 17:57 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-07 21:27 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 22:45 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 20:58 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 17:49 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 19:58 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 18:01 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-07 20:57 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 10:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-07 10:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-07 14:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 14:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-07 20:10 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 08:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-08 09:39 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-08 10:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math polyfrag@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 10:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 12:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 11:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 12:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 13:06 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 13:21 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:33 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 14:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 07:48 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:59 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 08:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-09 17:38 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 09:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:20 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 09:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:26 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 09:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:41 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 09:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-09 19:01 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 12:59 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 11:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-16 13:03 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-16 13:12 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:10 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-19 06:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:39 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-19 07:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-19 16:30 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 10:03 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-19 23:18 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:05 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-19 13:09 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-20 05:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-20 10:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:30 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 04:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:25 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 13:33 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-02 17:20 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-02 17:57 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 20:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 07:34 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 14:40 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 07:33 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-03 23:07 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 08:39 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 09:25 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 16:17 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-20 08:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:32 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:34 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 04:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 08:44 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 09:50 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 18:20 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 18:24 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 09:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 14:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-22 22:50 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:47 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 06:41 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:02 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:28 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 05:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:28 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 17:03 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 23:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 14:36 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:45 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 08:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 16:34 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 23:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 08:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 10:02 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 15:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:49 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 06:57 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:04 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:34 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:30 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 05:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:36 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 14:02 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 16:29 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:19 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-26 23:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-27 05:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 05:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 17:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-29 08:40 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-29 16:42 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 14:33 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 06:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 08:37 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-30 14:36 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:47 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 06:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 07:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Sienkiewicz Emniak <iecunkn@swazine.po> - 2017-05-28 15:19 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 16:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-29 08:33 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-29 08:59 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 10:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Earnest Rives <ueeenn@wweiwne.ac> - 2017-05-29 21:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 07:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-30 08:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ernest Rivers <erwm@weicnne.ac> - 2017-05-30 19:02 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 06:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 17:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 14:39 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 07:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 09:36 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 12:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 19:41 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Ernest Schwanenflügel <erwm@wanenf.oa> - 2017-05-30 19:54 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 22:35 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-30 20:04 -0400
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 00:38 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 06:42 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:01 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-31 09:18 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 07:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:39 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 08:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 17:08 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 15:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 16:55 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 12:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 14:52 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2017-05-30 15:41 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-28 19:42 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-28 23:04 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-25 02:38 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 16:46 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 13:00 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 21:41 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-22 15:40 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 05:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 17:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-28 12:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 07:04 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-19 10:04 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 10:04 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 12:33 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 18:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:57 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-16 19:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-17 12:53 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-18 05:05 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 05:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 06:20 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 06:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 06:40 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-18 06:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 06:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-21 05:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-21 07:10 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-21 14:21 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:35 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 04:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:28 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 09:02 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:46 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-20 18:55 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-17 12:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-17 15:31 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-17 23:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 20:21 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 12:44 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-18 19:14 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 17:26 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:29 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-17 14:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-17 14:39 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-17 14:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-17 14:29 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 09:03 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-17 13:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:43 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:11 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-16 22:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 20:53 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:37 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 20:20 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 09:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 09:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 10:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 13:08 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-09 13:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 13:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 15:03 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 15:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-09 16:19 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 08:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 09:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 09:34 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 12:59 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 12:04 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-10 18:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 23:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 11:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-10 14:10 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-11 15:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-10 17:10 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 08:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-10 17:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-11 08:20 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-11 16:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-11 16:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-12 06:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 07:47 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-12 09:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-12 09:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 10:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:12 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 10:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 11:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-12 14:03 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 17:12 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 17:14 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 15:40 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-13 07:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:34 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-13 08:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 12:14 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 15:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:47 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 04:03 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-13 12:07 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 22:37 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 14:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-13 20:21 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:02 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 22:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 05:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 05:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 19:57 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 12:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 13:12 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 21:34 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 13:47 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 15:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 16:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-15 23:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 04:40 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-16 06:20 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 06:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 10:49 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 14:37 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:21 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 18:33 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Marc Lichtenstein <eruamcn@cillnnwms.cc> - 2017-05-20 13:32 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 21:17 -0400
Re: Reality versus Math Ndrijving Pruiten <ui@jsweiw.ke> - 2017-05-20 16:43 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 16:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 21:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-09 16:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 08:41 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 08:57 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 09:33 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 17:07 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 17:09 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 08:12 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 08:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-10 17:41 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-10 17:42 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 08:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:54 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 11:56 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 12:26 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 12:32 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 13:38 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-10 22:45 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-10 21:00 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 14:29 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 20:10 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-11 08:29 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-11 17:39 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 08:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 17:52 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-11 09:19 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 18:25 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-11 09:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-11 18:30 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-11 09:36 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-11 19:21 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 22:03 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-12 11:45 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-12 03:06 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 18:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-12 06:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 09:21 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-12 09:33 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-12 10:04 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-12 19:39 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-12 10:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:13 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 20:50 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 18:47 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-11 19:19 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 18:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 18:25 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 16:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 15:31 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-11 19:57 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:24 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-12 21:47 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 16:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-12 23:40 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:33 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 22:26 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 19:16 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:57 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:46 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 21:55 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 16:46 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:59 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 16:47 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:43 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 15:50 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:22 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:27 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 05:09 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 17:37 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Ndrijving Pruiten <ui@jsweiw.ke> - 2017-05-20 16:46 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-21 00:09 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Ndrijving Pruiten <ui@jsweiw.ke> - 2017-05-21 10:16 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-21 15:58 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 10:03 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ndrijving Pruiten <ui@jsweiw.ke> - 2017-05-20 17:09 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:33 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 22:05 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 19:03 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 11:24 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:49 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-04 21:02 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 08:51 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-10 17:05 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 18:58 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 10:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 13:14 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-11 08:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 15:54 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-13 07:34 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:20 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-14 06:34 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 10:43 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-14 19:13 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-14 19:14 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-15 06:48 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:54 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-19 05:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 12:58 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 18:05 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-18 18:23 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 12:58 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:50 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-18 18:23 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 12:56 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:13 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-11 19:33 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-11 13:08 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-11 21:16 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-12 20:56 +0100
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-11 13:05 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 16:07 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:07 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:20 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 13:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:35 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 08:08 -0700
Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-09 17:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 08:04 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-10 15:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-11 08:03 -0700
Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-25 11:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-05 22:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 07:56 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Groupie <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 02:21 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 02:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math einstein.groupie69@gmail.com - 2017-06-06 09:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Wozniak <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:32 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 11:42 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:25 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 22:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ernardin Regoire <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-07 20:01 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 13:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 14:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 13:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 13:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 15:49 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:09 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 06:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 12:16 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 12:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-08 23:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-09 07:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 15:18 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-09 15:58 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 14:02 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-09 19:12 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 16:26 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 09:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:29 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-08 23:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 11:56 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 13:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-08 21:00 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 16:35 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:00 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-09 00:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-09 07:25 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 14:35 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Groupie <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 17:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 21:41 -0400
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 22:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:53 -0700
Page 6 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 27 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32b35e58-fd32-4d16-99a9-0eb46cb75968@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419661 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 2:15:08 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: > On May 9, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> The speed of light Is MEASURED the same in "every system of inertial > >>> coordinates." BUT it is NOT the same. > > Right, that's the point missed by those fool mathematicians. > > MEASUREMENTS are merely illusions, just smoke and mirrors. > ACTUAL TRUTH and REALITY is determined by other means, > that is, FACTS and LOGIC and EXPERIMENTS. > > > HOWEVER, it is NOT a "law" that the length of a second must be the > > same everywhere. And the length of a second is NOT the same everywhere. > Therefore, c can be different everywhere even though it is measured to > > be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND everywhere. > > Right again. > > er, there's one question I have: if the length of a second > is different everywhere, if a second isn't a second, if we > can't trust measurements..... then what exactly IS a second? > I mean, what’s the definition? In SR: One second on a moving clock is worth gamma-seconds on the observer’s clock. In IRT: One second on a moving clock is worth gamma-seconds on the observer’s clock. OR One second on a moving clock is worth 1/gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed298ca6-12e2-4a68-b2d3-b23b9823a7ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419661 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:15:08 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On May 9, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> The speed of light Is MEASURED the same in "every system of inertial > >>> coordinates." BUT it is NOT the same. > > Right, that's the point missed by those fool mathematicians. > > MEASUREMENTS are merely illusions, just smoke and mirrors. > ACTUAL TRUTH and REALITY is determined by other means, > that is, FACTS and LOGIC and EXPERIMENTS. > > > HOWEVER, it is NOT a "law" that the length of a second must be the > > same everywhere. And the length of a second is NOT the same everywhere. > Therefore, c can be different everywhere even though it is measured to > > be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND everywhere. > > Right again. > > er, there's one question I have: if the length of a second > is different everywhere, if a second isn't a second, if we > can't trust measurements..... then what exactly IS a second? > I mean, what's the definition? > > You're better at logic than I, Ed, would you help me out here? > > -- > Rich I know that this could just be a trick to get me to post here again, after I said that it was a waste of time, but the question is a good one. According to the US Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the length of a second is officially defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields." But that is just the STANDARD. It was evidently established at NIST's headquarters in Boulder, Colorado. If you want to know how far off your clock is from the "standard," then make a comparison between your clock and the official "standard." It's not much different from adjusting your watch because it is running slow or fast. The maximum length for a second is theoretically what you'd get if you set your atomic clock at the point where the Big Bang occurred. At that point you would be theoretically stationary, so the length of a second would not be affected by any motion, and theoretically all matter in the universe would be evenly distributed around you, so the length of a second would not be affected by any nearby gravitational mass. Easy peasy. If you cannot deal with the length of a second being slightly different everywhere, then you have a very unusual problem, since it doesn't seem to bother anyone else in the world. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a14eee9-6ff9-4683-ab22-cde3f28239b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419668 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > The maximum length for a second is theoretically what you'd get if you set your atomic clock at the point where the Big Bang occurred. At that point you would be theoretically stationary, so the length of a second would not be affected by any motion, and theoretically all matter in the universe would be evenly distributed around you, so the length of a second would not be affected by any nearby gravitational mass. > > Easy peasy. > When you get old, dementia kicks in. Sad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <offpsk$1qdk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419668 |
On 5/16/17 3:03 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > I know that this could just be a trick to get me to post here again, after I said that it was a waste of time, but the question is a good one. > > According to the US Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the length of a second is officially defined as "the duration of > 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external > fields." What's not stated in this definition is that this is the the definition of a second for such a clock that is local and at rest. A cesium atom traveling with any significant speed would violate the standard. A cesium atom at a significant distance away in a gravitational field would violate the standard. > > But that is just the STANDARD. It was evidently established at NIST's headquarters in Boulder, Colorado. If you want to know how far off your clock is from > the "standard," then make a comparison between your clock and the official "standard." It's not much different from adjusting your watch because it is running > slow or fast. > Rest below is claptrap. > The maximum length for a second is theoretically what you'd get if you set your atomic clock at the point where the Big Bang occurred. At that point you would > be theoretically stationary, so the length of a second would not be affected by any motion, and theoretically all matter in the universe would be evenly > distributed around you, so the length of a second would not be affected by any nearby gravitational mass. > > Easy peasy. > > If you cannot deal with the length of a second being slightly different everywhere, then you have a very unusual problem, since it doesn't seem to bother anyone > else in the world. > > Ed -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78a0bf1b-849a-487f-a3ef-ef45ca641adc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419676 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:10:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/16/17 3:03 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > I know that this could just be a trick to get me to post here again, after I said that it was a waste of time, but the question is a good one. > > > > According to the US Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the length of a second is officially defined as "the duration of > > 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external > > fields." > > What's not stated in this definition is that this is the the definition > of a second for such a clock that is local and at rest. A cesium atom > traveling with any significant speed would violate the standard. A > cesium atom at a significant distance away in a gravitational field > would violate the standard. Local and at rest wrt what? Does that mean that the observer’s clock second is the standard? But the observer is also in a state of motion according to other observer.....so how can his clock second is the standard? What this mean is that each observer claims that his clock second is the standard. The end result is that we have infinite different standards for a clock second.....is that what you are trying to say? The problem is: this means that a clock second is not a universal interval of time as claimed by you SRians. IOW you can compare clock second in A’s frame to a clock second in B’s frame reach the conclusion that > > > > > But that is just the STANDARD. It was evidently established at NIST's headquarters in Boulder, Colorado. If you want to know how far off your clock is from > > the "standard," then make a comparison between your clock and the official "standard." It's not much different from adjusting your watch because it is running > > slow or fast. > > > > Rest below is claptrap. > > > The maximum length for a second is theoretically what you'd get if you set your atomic clock at the point where the Big Bang occurred. At that point you would > > be theoretically stationary, so the length of a second would not be affected by any motion, and theoretically all matter in the universe would be evenly > > distributed around you, so the length of a second would not be affected by any nearby gravitational mass. > > > > Easy peasy. > > > > If you cannot deal with the length of a second being slightly different everywhere, then you have a very unusual problem, since it doesn't seem to bother anyone > > else in the world. > > > > Ed > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 08:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofmsi4$voa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419909 |
On 5/19/17 8:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:10:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/16/17 3:03 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I know that this could just be a trick to get me to post here again, after I said that it was a waste of time, but the question is a good one. >>> >>> According to the US Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the length of a second is officially defined as "the duration of >>> 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external >>> fields." >> >> What's not stated in this definition is that this is the the definition >> of a second for such a clock that is local and at rest. A cesium atom >> traveling with any significant speed would violate the standard. A >> cesium atom at a significant distance away in a gravitational field >> would violate the standard. > > Local and at rest wrt what? Local and at rest with respect to the observer. > Does that mean that the observer’s clock second is the standard? For him, yes. > But the observer is also in a state of motion according to other observer.....so how can his clock second is the standard? The first clock is NOT a standard to the other observer. The other observer will have to use a clock that is local and standard to him. > What this mean is that each observer claims that his clock second is the standard. The end result is that we have infinite > different standards for a clock second. One for each of infinite different observers! Yes! That's the point. No clock can serve as a standard for multiple observers in relative motion. There IS NO SUCH clock in nature. > ....is that what you are trying to say? The problem is: this means that a clock second is not a universal interval of time > as claimed by you SRians. No "SRian" claims a "universal interval of time" in the way you think of it. You're thinking of it as being a clock second on a single clock that can serve as a standard for all observers. But that's not what "SRians" are talking about. SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: Take a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest relative to you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same for all observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being universal. It would be the same if I were to define a standard hole as being one that is dug right next to you, is 6 feet deep according to your local ruler, and is downward according to your local reference. This defines a universal standard for a hole. However, there will be an infinite number of holes, then, one for each of infinite number of observers, and they will point in different directions (a hole in Australia points in a different direction than one in Canada), and different observers will see others' holes as being something other than 6 feet deep. The holes do not need to be identical according to all observers in order for them to be standard holes. All that matters is that they were all created according to the specification: a) local to you, b) 6 feet deep by your local ruler, and c) downward according to your local reference. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33c71a24-a4cf-4476-86fb-f2c5205ac035@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419910 |
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/19/17 8:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:10:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/16/17 3:03 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> I know that this could just be a trick to get me to post here again, after I said that it was a waste of time, but the question is a good one. > >>> > >>> According to the US Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the length of a second is officially defined as "the duration of > >>> 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external > >>> fields." > >> > >> What's not stated in this definition is that this is the the definition > >> of a second for such a clock that is local and at rest. A cesium atom > >> traveling with any significant speed would violate the standard. A > >> cesium atom at a significant distance away in a gravitational field > >> would violate the standard. > > > > Local and at rest wrt what? > > Local and at rest with respect to the observer. > > > Does that mean that the observer’s clock second is the standard? > > For him, yes. > > > But the observer is also in a state of motion according to other observer.....so how can his clock second is the standard? > > The first clock is NOT a standard to the other observer. The other > observer will have to use a clock that is local and standard to him. > > > What this mean is that each observer claims that his clock second is the standard. The end result is that we have infinite > > different standards for a clock second. > > One for each of infinite different observers! Yes! > > That's the point. No clock can serve as a standard for multiple > observers in relative motion. There IS NO SUCH clock in nature. > > > ....is that what you are trying to say? The problem is: this means that a clock second is not a universal interval of time > > as claimed by you SRians. > > No "SRian" claims a "universal interval of time" in the way you think of > it. You're thinking of it as being a clock second on a single clock that > can serve as a standard for all observers. But that's not what "SRians" > are talking about. > > SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: Take > a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest relative to > you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same for all > observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being universal. So that means that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant but only a local constant.....right? > > It would be the same if I were to define a standard hole as being one > that is dug right next to you, is 6 feet deep according to your local > ruler, and is downward according to your local reference. This defines a > universal standard for a hole. However, there will be an infinite number > of holes, then, one for each of infinite number of observers, and they > will point in different directions (a hole in Australia points in a > different direction than one in Canada), and different observers will > see others' holes as being something other than 6 feet deep. The holes > do not need to be identical according to all observers in order for them > to be standard holes. All that matters is that they were all created > according to the specification: a) local to you, b) 6 feet deep by your > local ruler, and c) downward according to your local reference. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ofmvil$167s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419912 |
Op 19-mei-2017 om 16:01 schreef kenseto: > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/19/17 8:22 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:10:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/16/17 3:03 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> I know that this could just be a trick to get me to post here >>>>> again, after I said that it was a waste of time, but the >>>>> question is a good one. >>>>> >>>>> According to the US Government's National Institute of >>>>> Standards and Technology (NIST), the length of a second is >>>>> officially defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles >>>>> of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine >>>>> transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state >>>>> undisturbed by external fields." >>>> >>>> What's not stated in this definition is that this is the the >>>> definition of a second for such a clock that is local and at >>>> rest. A cesium atom traveling with any significant speed would >>>> violate the standard. A cesium atom at a significant distance >>>> away in a gravitational field would violate the standard. >>> >>> Local and at rest wrt what? >> >> Local and at rest with respect to the observer. >> >>> Does that mean that the observer’s clock second is the standard? >>> >> >> For him, yes. >> >>> But the observer is also in a state of motion according to other >>> observer.....so how can his clock second is the standard? >> >> The first clock is NOT a standard to the other observer. The other >> observer will have to use a clock that is local and standard to >> him. >> >>> What this mean is that each observer claims that his clock second >>> is the standard. The end result is that we have infinite >>> different standards for a clock second. >> >> One for each of infinite different observers! Yes! >> >> That's the point. No clock can serve as a standard for multiple >> observers in relative motion. There IS NO SUCH clock in nature. >> >>> ....is that what you are trying to say? The problem is: this >>> means that a clock second is not a universal interval of time as >>> claimed by you SRians. >> >> No "SRian" claims a "universal interval of time" in the way you >> think of it. You're thinking of it as being a clock second on a >> single clock that can serve as a standard for all observers. But >> that's not what "SRians" are talking about. >> >> SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: >> Take a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest >> relative to you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same >> for all observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being >> universal. > > So that means that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant but > only a local constant.....right? Yes, in the following sense: If a factory would be able to produce some standard "meter sticks" and hand them over to every observer, then every observer, using a standard clock and a standard meter stick, would locally (i.e. close to him/herself) measure the same speed of light. That means the same number of standard local meters, per standard local second. Every observer would get the same local number, and that is why it is called a "universal" constant, since, as far as we know, it is the same for every conceivable observer in the Universe. Now, since producing standard meter sticks is very difficult and impractical, whereas manufacturing a standard laser-apparatus and a standard clock is much more practical, it was decided to universally "redefine" the local speed of light as a fixed number, and then defining the meter as derived from (1) the second (which is just a count of transitions in a standard counting apparatus) and (2) the speed of light (which is just a universal fixed value). Simple, no? Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eea17c08-a19d-4c39-b1a5-0a6437ee6285@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419914 |
W dniu piątek, 19 maja 2017 16:30:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał: > Op 19-mei-2017 om 16:01 schreef kenseto: > > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/19/17 8:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:10:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/16/17 3:03 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> I know that this could just be a trick to get me to post here > >>>>> again, after I said that it was a waste of time, but the > >>>>> question is a good one. > >>>>> > >>>>> According to the US Government's National Institute of > >>>>> Standards and Technology (NIST), the length of a second is > >>>>> officially defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles > >>>>> of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine > >>>>> transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state > >>>>> undisturbed by external fields." > >>>> > >>>> What's not stated in this definition is that this is the the > >>>> definition of a second for such a clock that is local and at > >>>> rest. A cesium atom traveling with any significant speed would > >>>> violate the standard. A cesium atom at a significant distance > >>>> away in a gravitational field would violate the standard. > >>> > >>> Local and at rest wrt what? > >> > >> Local and at rest with respect to the observer. > >> > >>> Does that mean that the observer’s clock second is the standard? > >>> > >> > >> For him, yes. > >> > >>> But the observer is also in a state of motion according to other > >>> observer.....so how can his clock second is the standard? > >> > >> The first clock is NOT a standard to the other observer. The other > >> observer will have to use a clock that is local and standard to > >> him. > >> > >>> What this mean is that each observer claims that his clock second > >>> is the standard. The end result is that we have infinite > >>> different standards for a clock second. > >> > >> One for each of infinite different observers! Yes! > >> > >> That's the point. No clock can serve as a standard for multiple > >> observers in relative motion. There IS NO SUCH clock in nature. > >> > >>> ....is that what you are trying to say? The problem is: this > >>> means that a clock second is not a universal interval of time as > >>> claimed by you SRians. > >> > >> No "SRian" claims a "universal interval of time" in the way you > >> think of it. You're thinking of it as being a clock second on a > >> single clock that can serve as a standard for all observers. But > >> that's not what "SRians" are talking about. > >> > >> SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: > >> Take a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest > >> relative to you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same > >> for all observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being > >> universal. > > > > So that means that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant but > > only a local constant.....right? > > Yes, in the following sense: > If a factory would be able to produce some standard "meter sticks" Standard meter sticks matching ingeenious Shit, of course. > and hand them over to every observer, then every observer, using > a standard clock and a standard meter stick, Standard clocks and standard meter sticks matching ingeenious Shit, of course. > would locally (i.e. > close to him/herself) measure the same speed of light. And as we imagined he would, we can scream it's measured.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 23:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ofnnfn$l64$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419914 |
Op 19-mei-2017 om 16:30 schreef Dirk Van de moortel: > Op 19-mei-2017 om 16:01 schreef kenseto: >> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: [snip] >>> No "SRian" claims a "universal interval of time" in the way you >>> think of it. You're thinking of it as being a clock second on a >>> single clock that can serve as a standard for all observers. But >>> that's not what "SRians" are talking about. >>> >>> SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: >>> Take a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest >>> relative to you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same >>> for all observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being >>> universal. >> >> So that means that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant but >> only a local constant.....right? > > Yes, in the following sense: > If a factory would be able to produce some standard "meter sticks" > and hand them over to every observer, then every observer, using > a standard clock and a standard meter stick, would locally (i.e. > close to him/herself) measure the same speed of light. That > means the same number of standard local meters, per standard > local second. Every observer would get the same local number, > and that is why it is called a "universal" constant, since, as > far as we know, it is the same for every conceivable observer in > the Universe. > > Now, since producing standard meter sticks is very difficult > and impractical, whereas manufacturing a standard laser-apparatus > and a standard clock is much more practical, it was decided to > universally "redefine" the local speed of light as a fixed number, > and then defining the meter as derived from (1) the second (which > is just a count of transitions in a standard counting apparatus) > and (2) the speed of light (which is just a universal fixed value). > Simple, no? Apparently not simple, for Ken Seto. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 12:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofn8kt$1o6q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419912 |
On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >> SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: Take >> a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest relative to >> you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same for all >> observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being universal. > So that means that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant but only a local constant.....right? > No, it does NOT mean that. As pointed out to you before, a speed is a ratio of distance and time. 6/3 and 8/4 are the SAME ratios -- they are equal, even though the numerators and the denominators are different. So if there is a speed and there is a time of 3 to one observer and a time of 4 for a different observer, the RATIO is still the same as long as the distance is 6 for the first observer and 8 for the different observer. And this is precisely what happens. The times between events are different, but the RATIO of distance and time are still the same. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d63267e-5e6a-459d-98ab-9dfa6ef8703c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419929 |
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: Take > >> a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest relative to > >> you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same for all > >> observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being universal. > > So that means that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant but only a local constant.....right? > > > > No, it does NOT mean that. > As pointed out to you before, a speed is a ratio of distance and time. > 6/3 and 8/4 are the SAME ratios -- they are equal, even though the > numerators and the denominators are different. > > So if there is a speed and there is a time of 3 to one observer and a > time of 4 for a different observer, the RATIO is still the same as long > as the distance is 6 for the first observer and 8 for the different > observer. And this is precisely what happens. The times between events > are different, but the RATIO of distance and time are still the same. But material length of a meter stick is a universal constant. In order to get the constant ratio as you asserted physicists had to invent a new meter stick: 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. Such ad hoc invention is not doing physics. It is an invention made to save SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofnk0t$esu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419953 |
kenseto wrote: >> So if there is a speed and there is a time of 3 to one observer and a >> time of 4 for a different observer, the RATIO is still the same as long >> as the distance is 6 for the first observer and 8 for the different >> observer. And this is precisely what happens. The times between events >> are different, but the RATIO of distance and time are still the same. > > But material length of a meter stick is a universal constant. In order > to get the constant ratio as you asserted physicists had to invent a new > meter stick: > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. > Such ad hoc invention is not doing physics. It is an invention made to > save SR. Actually it does, and is good for IRT, a subset of DMM. Locally that material length is UNAVOIDABLE. Fully consistent with IRT. And E-Matrices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anne <0140519@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffb70830-6389-4e88-8e33-651c91f07ab3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419953 |
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:09:27 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >> SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: Take > > >> a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest relative to > > >> you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same for all > > >> observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being universal. > > > So that means that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant but only a local constant.....right? > > > > > > > No, it does NOT mean that. > > As pointed out to you before, a speed is a ratio of distance and time. > > 6/3 and 8/4 are the SAME ratios -- they are equal, even though the > > numerators and the denominators are different. > > > > So if there is a speed and there is a time of 3 to one observer and a > > time of 4 for a different observer, the RATIO is still the same as long > > as the distance is 6 for the first observer and 8 for the different > > observer. And this is precisely what happens. The times between events > > are different, but the RATIO of distance and time are still the same. > > But material length of a meter stick is a universal constant. In order to get the constant ratio as you asserted physicists had to invent a new meter stick: > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. > Such ad hoc invention is not doing physics. It is an invention made to save SR. the trouble is a meter stick is not very material is it? -- if the atomic theory is correct, its more empty space than matter. and as fora universal constant, well, maybe, once you've stipulated the temperature and all the stuff that might affect the length. so if you're not happy with the wavelength business, what would you suggest for a suitable standard?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de004cf7-adf1-428b-ba6c-4c5486b24753@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419956 |
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 4:43:55 PM UTC-4, anne wrote: > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:09:27 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 5/19/17 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > >> SRians are saying that the PROCEDURE is the same for each observer: Take > > > >> a clock that is 1) local to you (and you only), 2) at rest relative to > > > >> you, and 3) is standardized. This PROCEDURE is the same for all > > > >> observers, and THIS is what they mean by it being universal. > > > > So that means that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant but only a local constant.....right? > > > > > > > > > > No, it does NOT mean that. > > > As pointed out to you before, a speed is a ratio of distance and time. > > > 6/3 and 8/4 are the SAME ratios -- they are equal, even though the > > > numerators and the denominators are different. > > > > > > So if there is a speed and there is a time of 3 to one observer and a > > > time of 4 for a different observer, the RATIO is still the same as long > > > as the distance is 6 for the first observer and 8 for the different > > > observer. And this is precisely what happens. The times between events > > > are different, but the RATIO of distance and time are still the same. > > > > But material length of a meter stick is a universal constant. In order to get the constant ratio as you asserted physicists had to invent a new meter stick: > > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. > > Such ad hoc invention is not doing physics. It is an invention made to save SR. > > the trouble is a meter stick is not very material is it? -- if the atomic theory is correct, its more empty space than matter. and as fora universal constant, well, maybe, once you've stipulated the temperature and all the stuff that might affect the length. > so if you’re not happy with the wavelength business, what would you suggest for a suitable standard? Go back to the metal bar stored in Paris. We use material length to measure length everyday.....NOT using light-second to measure length.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4352e079-02df-4fb7-8687-dab18089f2cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420000 |
kenseto wrote Go back to the metal bar stored in Paris. We use material length to measure length everyday.....NOT using light-second to measure length. What happens to "This Metal Bar" under extreme gravitational loading ??? It would be best to make the bar out of the lightest stiffest material available, like carbon fiber made of carbon nanotubes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 13:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofsmbu$mgo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420000 |
On 5/20/17 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > Go back to the metal bar stored in Paris. We use material length to measure length everyday.....NOT using light-second to measure length. Just because everyday uses would only require a metal bar standard does not mean that the metal bar should be the standard. The reason is that there are many NON-everyday uses that require more precision, stability, and reproducibility than that bar would provide. Standards are built to be better than ANY application, including the more esoteric and demanding ones. Scientific standards are NOT built to the needs of the everyday and the ordinary man. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 04:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5bbf7878-866e-40e5-81b3-d30358c1b6fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420147 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/20/17 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Go back to the metal bar stored in Paris. We use material length to measure length everyday.....NOT using light-second to measure length. > > Just because everyday uses would only require a metal bar standard does > not mean that the metal bar should be the standard. The reason is that > there are many NON-everyday uses that require more precision, stability, > and reproducibility than that bar would provide. > > Standards are built to be better than ANY application, including the > more esoteric and demanding ones. > > Scientific standards are NOT built to the needs of the everyday and the > ordinary man. The one-way speed of light never been tested directly. So how can you use it as standard for length?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 08:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofuosj$2qq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420207 |
On 5/22/17 6:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/20/17 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Go back to the metal bar stored in Paris. We use material length to measure length everyday.....NOT using light-second to measure length. >> >> Just because everyday uses would only require a metal bar standard does >> not mean that the metal bar should be the standard. The reason is that >> there are many NON-everyday uses that require more precision, stability, >> and reproducibility than that bar would provide. >> >> Standards are built to be better than ANY application, including the >> more esoteric and demanding ones. >> >> Scientific standards are NOT built to the needs of the everyday and the >> ordinary man. > > The one-way speed of light never been tested directly. So how can you use it as standard for length? > Because a one-way direct measurement is not needed. Two way light speed and isotropy determination completely constrain what one-way light speed must be. That is a simple proof using 7th grade algebra. Again, I will reiterate: standards are NOT built to the needs of the everyday and the ordinary man. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofupad$4a0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420214 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> The one-way speed of light never been tested directly. So how can you >> use it as standard for length? > > Because a one-way direct measurement is not needed. Two way light speed > and isotropy determination completely constrain what one-way light speed > must be. That is a simple proof using 7th grade algebra. He has a valid point. The two ways supposes a speed = zero at the boundaries encapsulating the mirror (rigid object). Hence Zero/Zero [m/s] must be excluded from the manifold. Excellent post, thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web