Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422344 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-12 20:18 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-06-23 21:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 216 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:18 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 15:43 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 17:43 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-12 21:57 +0200
Re: What Happened to Seto? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-06-12 18:03 +0200
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-12 09:34 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:39 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:40 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:26 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:57 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:28 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:14 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-13 07:17 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:16 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 08:58 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 10:45 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-14 07:26 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 15:00 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 11:30 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 06:15 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 15:48 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 06:54 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 15:56 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 01:55 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:54 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 13:01 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-16 03:41 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Kotovanich Nzerovu <ivhvruo@wovewvw.ev> - 2017-06-15 17:49 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-16 04:28 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 16:44 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 11:28 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 18:27 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 16:37 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-16 07:23 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-16 07:21 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-15 07:25 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 10:24 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-16 06:08 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:23 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-16 06:28 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:37 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-16 06:47 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-16 15:25 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 15:02 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-17 07:35 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:48 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-17 12:03 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:21 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-18 04:27 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-18 13:52 +0200
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-19 05:09 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 12:42 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-19 17:26 +0200
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-18 12:32 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-19 05:16 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-19 12:38 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:03 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-19 11:24 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:30 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-21 06:16 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:08 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-22 07:45 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 15:28 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-24 05:46 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-24 17:05 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 15:49 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 16:06 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 02:50 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-04 22:58 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-07-05 20:22 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Oveho Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> - 2017-07-05 11:08 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Oveho Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> - 2017-07-05 11:06 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-05 04:26 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Oveho Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> - 2017-07-06 13:19 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Oveho Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> - 2017-07-05 11:05 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-05 04:20 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:44 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-19 11:25 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-19 20:26 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 16:12 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-21 06:23 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:10 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-22 09:00 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-22 01:16 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 15:29 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-22 01:56 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 12:43 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 05:49 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-22 06:54 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-22 15:58 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-23 09:30 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-23 09:18 +0200
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-23 23:34 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 09:26 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-25 00:55 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 14:20 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-18 08:45 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 15:47 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 16:10 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 16:08 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 16:54 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 03:15 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 13:52 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-15 07:21 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 10:23 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-16 06:05 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:21 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-16 15:44 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 11:14 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-16 06:23 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:26 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-16 08:11 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 15:02 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-17 11:56 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 09:21 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-14 07:12 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 06:34 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 10:17 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 23:47 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 08:49 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 00:57 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 08:51 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 23:59 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-15 08:23 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 18:50 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 08:38 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 08:25 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 02:10 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-17 07:11 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 08:53 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-18 05:52 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 14:50 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:48 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-19 01:42 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 19:33 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-19 19:45 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-20 08:14 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-20 08:42 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-21 14:37 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-21 19:18 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-22 08:15 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 15:47 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 21:18 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-22 03:16 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-23 07:00 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 02:16 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 20:07 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 20:39 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 10:19 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:12 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 13:21 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 19:58 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:39 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 16:25 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:11 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:01 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 11:53 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:35 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 13:11 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:38 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-28 03:54 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 19:35 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 00:04 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 09:48 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 13:54 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-29 00:46 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 09:04 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 23:17 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:40 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:08 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:57 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 03:11 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:31 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 09:04 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 11:00 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 07:15 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:27 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 11:48 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:34 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:01 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 14:42 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 03:02 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 13:57 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 10:43 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:56 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:08 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:33 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-22 02:49 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:43 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 19:46 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 02:12 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 02:14 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 10:41 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 08:27 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 09:05 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 21:39 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 22:16 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 00:08 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-17 08:00 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 09:39 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 21:18 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 14:47 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 19:16 -0400
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-21 12:59 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-17 07:51 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-17 07:45 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 20:02 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 20:19 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-20 11:39 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-21 11:43 +0000
Re: What Happened to Seto? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-21 23:10 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-21 06:28 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:06 -0500
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-22 07:50 -0700
Re: What Happened to Seto? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-24 11:11 +1000
Re: What Happened to Seto? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-23 21:14 -0700
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 00:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okedli$ihh$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425036 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> Reading your book now. Have you got an opinion from scientists on the book? >I was granted the copyright for my book and the copyright reviewer commented >that my book contains original ideas on physics and cosmology. Stupid Ken, you still don't know the difference between "original" and "good", "scientific", "accurate" etc. ? And you don't know the difference between "scientist" and "copyright reviewer"? Stupid Ken, what do you think would happen if I gave a two-year-old some paper and crayons, then took the resulting drawing to a fine arts museum and asked the museum's experts if the drawing was original? They'd say yes, of course. But then ask if it was worthy of being displayed in the museum... Your IRT is "original" the same way a two-year-old's drawing is, and for the same reason... Also, you were asked if *scientists* had an opinion on your failed IRT, not copyright reviewers. Guess what actual scientists would say....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04f5c6ba-dfd1-4e0c-89b7-52e8c2781e93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424814 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:47:16 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:18:33 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > > > Maybe he died. Maybe he has changed his nickname because he was so > > > ashamed of his theory. > > > > I am tired of the low level of the intelligence that exists in this NG. I published a new book of the universe (http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf) that includes the following items......no body in this NG bothers to give any intelligent comment: > > > > _ It offers a realistic origin of the universe. > > _ It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters. > > _ It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes. > > _ It provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature. > > _ It can be validated experimentally. > > _ It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). > > _ It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) > > _ It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets. > > _ It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics. > > _ It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force. > > _ It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle. > > _ It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments. > > _ It explains the structures of atoms. > > Hi Ken > > Reading your book now. Have you got an opinion from scientists on the book? Some favorable comments from the people in the FQXi group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 23:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1a2f323-ae47-48e9-9e6f-df8052e1fb22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422453 |
On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:47:16 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:18:33 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > > Maybe he died. Maybe he has changed his nickname because he was so > > ashamed of his theory. > > I am tired of the low level of the intelligence that exists in this NG. I published a new book of the universe (http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf) that includes the following items......no body in this NG bothers to give any intelligent comment: > > _ It offers a realistic origin of the universe. > _ It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters. > _ It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes. > _ It provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature. > _ It can be validated experimentally. > _ It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). > _ It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) > _ It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets. > _ It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics. > _ It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force. > _ It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle. > _ It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments. > _ It explains the structures of atoms. Intriguing. Several comments: 1. I do not have the expertise to evaluate your theory 2. There are several possible objections to the theory: a) Philosophical objections b) Objections based on mathematical inconsistencies c) Objections based on logic d) Objects based on negative experimental results. In my opinion, you do not have to worry about (a), or (c). Previous theories have survived without these problems. Have you got your theory peer-reviewed for the mathematics? What experimental results does it predict?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okbg8f$17g2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424816 |
On 14/07/17 16:59, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:47:16 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > Intriguing. Several comments: > > 1. I do not have the expertise to evaluate your theory > 2. There are several possible objections to the theory: > > a) Philosophical objections > b) Objections based on mathematical inconsistencies > c) Objections based on logic > d) Objects based on negative experimental results. > > In my opinion, you do not have to worry about (a), or (c). Previous theories have survived without these problems. > > Have you got your theory peer-reviewed for the mathematics? What experimental results does it predict? You're wasting your time reading Ken's paper. It is just another aether theory. You should read my thesis on Ballistic Light. http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/bath.html --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626b3885-1026-44c2-8639-263081f2f797@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424930 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: > > On 14/07/17 16:59, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Intriguing. Several comments: > > > > 1. I do not have the expertise to evaluate your theory > > 2. There are several possible objections to the theory: > > > > a) Philosophical objections > > b) Objections based on mathematical inconsistencies > > c) Objections based on logic > > d) Objects based on negative experimental results. > > > > In my opinion, you do not have to worry about (a), or (c). Previous > > theories have survived without these problems. > > > > Have you got your theory peer-reviewed for the mathematics? No, he doesn't. > > What experimental results does it predict? None. > You're wasting your time reading Ken's paper. It is just another aether > theory. You should read my thesis on Ballistic Light. > http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/bath.html That's a waste of time, too. Both have been refuted by copious experimental evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94dbe94a-e502-4491-9b7b-8a4ebef3f5fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424930 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 6:23:17 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > On 14/07/17 16:59, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:47:16 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > > > Intriguing. Several comments: > > > > 1. I do not have the expertise to evaluate your theory > > 2. There are several possible objections to the theory: > > > > a) Philosophical objections > > b) Objections based on mathematical inconsistencies > > c) Objections based on logic > > d) Objects based on negative experimental results. > > > > In my opinion, you do not have to worry about (a), or (c). Previous theories have survived without these problems. > > > > Have you got your theory peer-reviewed for the mathematics? What experimental results does it predict? > > You're wasting your time reading Ken's paper. It is just another aether > theory. You should read my thesis on Ballistic Light. > http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/bath.html > ROTFLOL your claim is laughable.....Your ballistic light theory is just a subset of Model Mechanics’ wave-packet and Einstein’s photon. You have no idea why light comes in the form of ballistic (wave-packet). Model Mechanics explains that a wave-packet is formed due to the absolute motion of the source in the E-Matrix (see page 33 of my book).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 08:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okgp5h$cmr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425033 |
On 16/07/17 01:38, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 6:23:17 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: >>> In my opinion, you do not have to worry about (a), or (c). >>> Previous theories have survived without these problems. >>> >>> Have you got your theory peer-reviewed for the mathematics? What >>> experimental results does it predict? >> >> You're wasting your time reading Ken's paper. It is just another >> aether theory. You should read my thesis on Ballistic Light. >> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/bath.html >> > > ROTFLOL your claim is laughable.....Your ballistic light theory is > just a subset of Model Mechanics’ wave-packet and Einstein’s photon. > You have no idea why light comes in the form of ballistic > (wave-packet). Model Mechanics explains that a wave-packet is formed > due to the absolute motion of the source in the E-Matrix (see page 33 > of my book). You E-matrix is just another version of classical aether. Light is not a wave in any bloody E-Matrix. It is particulate and ballistic in empty space, ie., in 'nothing'. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 02:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okh6a6$a9a$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425230 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 16/07/17 01:38, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 6:23:17 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: ... Kookfight!!! In this corner, with his failed Model Mechanics, is Ken Seto .... And in this corner, with his DirtyBaThWater, is Ralph M. Rabbidge! Who will come out as Kook Champion!?!? The Biggest Relativity Kook of All?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b41f8208-3fec-4aa4-b4b3-748bd5531ea8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425230 |
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 6:25:58 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 16/07/17 01:38, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 6:23:17 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>
> >>> In my opinion, you do not have to worry about (a), or (c).
> >>> Previous theories have survived without these problems.
> >>>
> >>> Have you got your theory peer-reviewed for the mathematics? What
> >>> experimental results does it predict?
> >>
> >> You're wasting your time reading Ken's paper. It is just another
> >> aether theory. You should read my thesis on Ballistic Light.
> >> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/bath.html
> >>
> >
> > ROTFLOL your claim is laughable.....Your ballistic light theory is
> > just a subset of Model Mechanics’ wave-packet and Einstein’s photon.
> > You have no idea why light comes in the form of ballistic
> > (wave-packet). Model Mechanics explains that a wave-packet is formed
> > due to the absolute motion of the source in the E-Matrix (see page 33
> > of my book).
>
> You E-matrix is just another version of classical aether. Light is not a
> wave in any bloody E-Matrix. It is particulate and ballistic in empty
> space, ie., in 'nothing'.
>
No......can’t you read? The E-Matrix is not just another classical aether. It is a unique aether that has the following unique features:
_ It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
_ It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
_ It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
_ It provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature.
_ It can be validated experimentally.
_ It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
_ It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity
(DTG)
_ It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity
as subsets.
_ It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
_ It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
_ It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
_ It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum
experiments.
- It explains the structures of atoms
Can your ballistic light explain all these unique properties? Guess not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 08:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okjf4p$jlf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425300 |
On 18/07/17 00:11, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 6:25:58 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: >>>> >>>> You're wasting your time reading Ken's paper. It is just another >>>> aether theory. You should read my thesis on Ballistic Light. >>>> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/bath.html >>>> >>> >>> ROTFLOL your claim is laughable.....Your ballistic light theory is >>> just a subset of Model Mechanics’ wave-packet and Einstein’s photon. >>> You have no idea why light comes in the form of ballistic >>> (wave-packet). Model Mechanics explains that a wave-packet is formed >>> due to the absolute motion of the source in the E-Matrix (see page 33 >>> of my book). >> >> You E-matrix is just another version of classical aether. Light is not a >> wave in any bloody E-Matrix. It is particulate and ballistic in empty >> space, ie., in 'nothing'. >> > > No......can’t you read? The E-Matrix is not just another classical aether. It is a unique aether that has the following unique features: > _ It offers a realistic origin of the universe. > _ It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters. > _ It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes. > _ It provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature. > _ It can be validated experimentally. > _ It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). > _ It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity > (DTG) > _ It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity > as subsets. That proves it must be wrong. Both SR and GR are plain bullshit from start to finish. > _ It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics. > _ It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force. > _ It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle. > _ It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum > experiments. > - It explains the structures of atoms > > Can your ballistic light explain all these unique properties? Guess not. BaTh deals with light in transit. It is the only theory that does that successfully. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eaea8cf1-5bac-47d9-b79e-af83d8a34cec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425398 |
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 6:53:18 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > On 18/07/17 00:11, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 6:25:58 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > > >>>> > >>>> You're wasting your time reading Ken's paper. It is just another > >>>> aether theory. You should read my thesis on Ballistic Light. > >>>> http://www.scisite.info/books/bath/bath.html > >>>> > >>> > >>> ROTFLOL your claim is laughable.....Your ballistic light theory is > >>> just a subset of Model Mechanics’ wave-packet and Einstein’s photon. > >>> You have no idea why light comes in the form of ballistic > >>> (wave-packet). Model Mechanics explains that a wave-packet is formed > >>> due to the absolute motion of the source in the E-Matrix (see page 33 > >>> of my book). > >> > >> You E-matrix is just another version of classical aether. Light is not a > >> wave in any bloody E-Matrix. It is particulate and ballistic in empty > >> space, ie., in 'nothing'. > >> > > > > No......can’t you read? The E-Matrix is not just another classical aether. It is a unique aether that has the following unique features: > > _ It offers a realistic origin of the universe. > > _ It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters. > > _ It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes. > > _ It provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature. > > _ It can be validated experimentally. > > _ It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). > > _ It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity > > (DTG) > > _ It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity > > as subsets. > > That proves it must be wrong. Both SR and GR are plain bullshit from > start to finish. Assertions are not valid argument. > > > _ It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics. > > _ It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force. > > _ It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle. > > _ It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum > > experiments. > > - It explains the structures of atoms > > > > Can your ballistic light explain all these unique properties? Guess not. > > BaTh deals with light in transit. It is the only theory that does that > successfully. This claim is bogus......Model Mechanics describes the transit of light successfully.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okl78b$301$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425454 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Assertions are not valid argument. So why do you repeatedly make these invalid assertions, Stupid Ken? You assert that it offers a realistic origin of the universe. You assert that it provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature. You assert that it can be validated experimentally. You assert that it gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity You assert that it includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets. If, as you state, assertions are not valid arguments, why do you make those assertions, repeatedly? >> BaTh deals with light in transit. It is the only theory that does that >> successfully. >This claim is bogus......Model Mechanics describes the transit of light >successfully. Which kook theory is the bigger failure...DirtyBathWater or Model Mechanics? Can one or the other be more wrong if they are both completely wrong? Is either a bigger disaster than the other? We need a professional kookologist to investigate which is the biggest failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 09:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okm6nm$vlg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425471 |
On 19/07/17 00:50, Michael Moroney wrote: "My theory about country shit houses is the only correct one. It is my only claim to fame". --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 01:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okmder$qt0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425545 |
>>Which kook theory is the bigger failure...DirtyBathWater or Model Mechanics? >>Can one or the other be more wrong if they are both completely wrong? >>Is either a bigger disaster than the other? >>We need a professional kookologist to investigate which is the biggest >>failure. "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 19/07/17 00:50, Michael Moroney wrote: "My theory about country shit >houses is the only correct one. It is my only claim to fame". What's that, Ralph? You say that your DirtyBaThWater is worthy only of a country shithouse? Really, Mr. Rabbidge? So your DirtyBaThWater is an even bigger failure than Ken's failed Model Mechanics? That's a rather big claim, since it is well known that Model Mechanics is a complete, total, absolute failure, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 19:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okn916$eeo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425556 |
On 19/07/17 11:42, Michael Moroney wrote "anyone who reads my messages is wasting his time".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okocti$4s3$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425585 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >"anyone who reads my messages is wasting his time". So Ralph, you are now admiting that you are merely a troll, and not an actual kook who thinks he has found the secrets of the universe in c+v and DirtyBathWater? And Ralph, you don't really believe that you become an outstanding physicist by photoshopping together a diploma? All you have been doing is wasting everyone's time, Ralph?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 08:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okoll1$ui6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425618 |
On 20/07/17 05:45, Michael Moroney wrote: "I wish I could be a real physicist like Henry Wilson".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 08:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okpqdq$e71$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425631 |
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <hgw@....> writes: > "I wish I could be a real physicist like Henry Wilson". So Ralph, who is this physicist 'Henry Wilson' that you wish you were like, Ralph? Obviously this 'Henry Wilson' physicist never posts here, since nobody has ever seen any actual physics here by any 'Henry Wilson', Ralph. Does this Mr. Wilson know that you are ruining his good name by posting as him, Ralph? I doubt he'd appreciate that you drag his name through the mud by blaming DirtyBaThWater on him, Ralph. Mr. Wilson likely does have a reputation to defend, after all, even if he does have an Irish surname, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 14:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oks0e1$5lr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425662 |
On 20/07/17 18:42, Michael Moron-y wrote: "I wish I was clever like physicist Henry Wilson but I can't be because I was born plainly stupid. All I can do is insult him...but at least he doesn't own a country shithouse in N. Ireland like I do". > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 19:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oktk26$uha$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425732 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 20/07/17 18:42, Michael Moron-y wrote: "I wish I was clever like >physicist Henry Wilson So Ralph, who is this "physicist Henry Wilson"? I never heard of him. It is obvious that "physicist Henry Wilson" never posts here since there has never been any actual physics posted by anyone calling himself Henry Wilson, Ralph. Ralph, does this "physicist Henry Wilson" know you are ruining his reputation here by pretending to be him, Ralph? Or is "physicist Henry Wilson" completely ficticious, Ralph? Perhaps Odd Bodkin is really named Henry Wilson, Ralph? We know that Odd Bodkin is a pseudonym and we don't know what his actual name is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web