Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424326 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-09 12:50 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-08-20 14:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 558 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 12:50 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-10 09:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-09 16:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-10 19:09 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 11:00 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-11 11:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 19:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-11 16:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-12 10:41 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 11:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-12 13:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-07-12 21:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 09:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 11:41 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-14 19:39 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-13 22:30 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-12 10:46 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Laverne Chandler <uunvvnh@ewdnrawe.ee> - 2017-07-12 22:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 11:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-15 08:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 18:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-16 18:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-16 04:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 09:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-16 16:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 09:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-17 19:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-17 20:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:23 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-18 16:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-18 17:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-22 09:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 21:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 15:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Huuouka Tokoji <ktukjoau@huywkoyu.uu> - 2017-07-23 14:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:11 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 08:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 22:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 17:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 20:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 01:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 12:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 13:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 20:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 12:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 20:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 15:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 05:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:32 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:22 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-24 20:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-24 09:16 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 08:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 23:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-27 14:33 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 09:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-29 11:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 10:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 13:57 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 17:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-30 23:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-01 11:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-31 10:43 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-01 11:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 21:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-21 19:37 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-22 15:30 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 06:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 13:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 14:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 16:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 02:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 10:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 14:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-23 16:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 14:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 20:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-26 13:28 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-07-26 17:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 15:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-27 11:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 22:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 08:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 09:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 18:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 04:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 14:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 08:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 19:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 09:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 02:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 03:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 15:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 20:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:33 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:51 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:02 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-02 17:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 23:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 20:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 06:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 08:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-06 03:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 05:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 10:08 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 18:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-07 05:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:47 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-04 09:33 -0400
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-04 16:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 00:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 16:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-05 07:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-06 09:02 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-05 19:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 09:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-07 04:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 14:08 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 14:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:47 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 06:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 08:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 08:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-08 15:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 14:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-08 21:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 14:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 15:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 20:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:45 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 07:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 19:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 19:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 05:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 07:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:18 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 13:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 21:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 01:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 06:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 09:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 19:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 20:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 20:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 21:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 19:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 23:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 17:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 01:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:32 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-09 15:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 10:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 08:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 18:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:20 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 14:54 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 01:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 11:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 11:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 14:57 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 11:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:50 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 17:11 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-11 12:05 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:24 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 10:54 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 10:22 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 08:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:21 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:34 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:55 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 17:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:13 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:45 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:29 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 18:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 20:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:25 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 15:02 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 09:52 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 14:12 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-12 16:39 -0400
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:30 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 14:22 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 05:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 08:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:49 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:08 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-14 13:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Prudence Oppenheimer <phow@innfldo.sp> - 2017-08-14 19:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-14 15:42 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 17:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-15 10:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-15 09:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:19 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 19:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 03:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 03:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 04:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 06:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:19 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 17:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:53 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:50 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 01:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 13:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 07:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:54 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-15 11:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 19:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 08:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:33 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 10:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:41 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 14:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 12:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 23:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 23:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 10:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 11:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 12:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 14:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 15:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 20:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-17 05:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 13:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-18 03:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-18 04:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 16:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 23:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 00:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 09:13 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 16:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 14:05 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 05:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-17 08:57 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 19:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 07:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 23:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-13 23:10 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 22:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 10:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 23:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 01:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 08:55 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 23:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-08 07:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 03:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 20:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-08 23:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 23:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:54 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 07:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 09:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-07 05:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 08:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 18:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-04 20:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 16:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-28 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 09:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 12:03 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 04:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 21:39 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-29 11:07 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 22:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-29 16:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 06:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 12:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 23:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 17:28 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 11:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 21:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 15:34 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 04:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 22:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 05:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 21:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 15:47 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 04:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 22:34 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 15:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 10:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 20:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 14:05 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 21:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 14:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 15:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 11:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:18 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-03 13:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 01:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 23:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 02:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 21:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:00 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 09:30 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 12:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 18:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 20:43 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 11:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:35 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-30 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-01 11:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 03:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 18:58 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 10:58 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 02:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 22:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 08:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 11:57 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-04 12:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 21:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-04 15:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 07:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 14:13 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 16:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 06:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-06 13:03 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:09 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 22:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 10:18 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 08:59 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:00 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 19:10 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 10:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 10:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:03 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 13:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:18 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:48 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-26 13:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-22 05:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:04 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-25 09:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 12:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 19:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-27 06:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 01:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 19:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 18:49 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 14:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 09:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 05:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 07:09 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 15:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 10:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:37 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-01 06:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-02 13:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 22:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 07:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 06:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:31 -0700
Page 13 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 28 Next page →
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 17:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <omht23$oqr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428050 |
Robert Winn, stubborn imbecile, wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:50:14 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Stupid Jesuit Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:38:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>> Idiot Jesuit Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:07:29 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>>>> Robert Winn, idiot Jesuit, wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:07:14 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Robert Idiot Jesuit Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> No, I agree with Galileo. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No Mr Winn. You cannot agree with something you've never >>>>>>>> understood. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, here are the equations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> x'=x-vt >>>>>>> y'=y >>>>>>> z'=z >>>>>>> t'=t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which part of the Galilean transformation equation do you think >>>>>>> I do not understand? >>>>>> >>>>>> all of them. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, well just explain why you do not think I understand all >>>>> of the Galilean transformation equations. >>>> >>>> Because I've read large part of the silly posts you've made on >>>> Usenet about them for more than twenty years. >>> >>> Well, that may be, but what you need to do is show specifically >>> what I do not understand, otherwise, you are just making statements >>> you cannot prove. >> >> What you specifically do not understand are x, x', v, t, vt, y', y, z, >> z', t and t' as well as = and -. And I'm only talking about this very >> set of equations. You've shown more misunderstandings on a lot of other >> equations like x=ct or x=-ct for instance. > > OK, well, I will post my understanding of these terms, You've spent more than twenty years posting your misunderstandings on these issues, Mr Idiot Jesuit. Without being able to understand a single word of what sane and educated people answered to you. This is useless to continue, you'll die as an Idiot Jesuit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e828628-c120-44c3-8c05-f2f1ab63307c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428055 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:11:12 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn, stubborn imbecile, wrote: > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:50:14 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >> Stupid Jesuit Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:38:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >>>> Idiot Jesuit Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:07:29 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >>>>>> Robert Winn, idiot Jesuit, wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:07:14 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >>>>>>>> Robert Idiot Jesuit Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> No, I agree with Galileo. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No Mr Winn. You cannot agree with something you've never > >>>>>>>> understood. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, here are the equations. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> x'=x-vt > >>>>>>> y'=y > >>>>>>> z'=z > >>>>>>> t'=t > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Which part of the Galilean transformation equation do you think > >>>>>>> I do not understand? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> all of them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Oh, well just explain why you do not think I understand all > >>>>> of the Galilean transformation equations. > >>>> > >>>> Because I've read large part of the silly posts you've made on > >>>> Usenet about them for more than twenty years. > >>> > >>> Well, that may be, but what you need to do is show specifically > >>> what I do not understand, otherwise, you are just making statements > >>> you cannot prove. > >> > >> What you specifically do not understand are x, x', v, t, vt, y', y, z, > >> z', t and t' as well as = and -. And I'm only talking about this very > >> set of equations. You've shown more misunderstandings on a lot of other > >> equations like x=ct or x=-ct for instance. > > > > OK, well, I will post my understanding of these terms, > > You've spent more than twenty years posting your misunderstandings > on these issues, Mr Idiot Jesuit. Without being able to understand > a single word of what sane and educated people answered to you. > > This is useless to continue, you'll die as an Idiot Jesuit. But I am not even a member of the Catholic church. I tried to tell Mr. Lounesto that before he drowned in the Mediterranean Sea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 12:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <omjvg4$1bgk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428073 |
Filthy piece of dirt, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:11:12 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Robert Winn, stubborn imbecile, wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:50:14 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>> Stupid Jesuit Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:38:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>>>> Idiot Jesuit Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:07:29 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Robert Winn, idiot Jesuit, wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:07:14 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Robert Idiot Jesuit Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> No, I agree with Galileo. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No Mr Winn. You cannot agree with something you've never >>>>>>>>>> understood. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, here are the equations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> x'=x-vt >>>>>>>>> y'=y >>>>>>>>> z'=z >>>>>>>>> t'=t >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which part of the Galilean transformation equation do you think >>>>>>>>> I do not understand? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> all of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, well just explain why you do not think I understand all >>>>>>> of the Galilean transformation equations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because I've read large part of the silly posts you've made on >>>>>> Usenet about them for more than twenty years. >>>>> >>>>> Well, that may be, but what you need to do is show specifically >>>>> what I do not understand, otherwise, you are just making statements >>>>> you cannot prove. >>>> >>>> What you specifically do not understand are x, x', v, t, vt, y', y, z, >>>> z', t and t' as well as = and -. And I'm only talking about this very >>>> set of equations. You've shown more misunderstandings on a lot of other >>>> equations like x=ct or x=-ct for instance. >>> >>> OK, well, I will post my understanding of these terms, >> >> You've spent more than twenty years posting your misunderstandings >> on these issues, Mr Idiot Jesuit. Without being able to understand >> a single word of what sane and educated people answered to you. >> >> This is useless to continue, you'll die as an Idiot Jesuit. > > But I am not even a member of the Catholic church. You probably cannot understand a metaphor because of the cognitive disease of yours, which is deep, big and incurable. Jesuit were considered by their opponents in the Church as hypocritical, sly, disgustingly unworthy, without any kind of honour and pathologically lying. You are. But Jesuit was considered as clever too, while you are dump, stupid and mentally weak beyond all usual limits. > I tried to tell Mr. Lounesto that before he drowned > in the Mediterranean Sea. Oh, and I forgot to tell you that you are a despicable piece of dirt, you do not deserve to be considered as a proper member of humanity. When the bunch of shit which is called Robert Winn will die, decent people will celebrate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-12 07:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oml7b5$1ndl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428221 |
On 11/08/17 20:05, Python wrote: > Filthy piece of dirt, Robert Winn wrote: >>> This is useless to continue, you'll die as an Idiot Jesuit. >> >> But I am not even a member of the Catholic church. > > You probably cannot understand a metaphor because of the cognitive > disease of yours, which is deep, big and incurable. > > Jesuit were considered by their opponents in the Church as > hypocritical, sly, disgustingly unworthy, without any kind > of honour and pathologically lying. > > You are. But Jesuit was considered as clever too, while you > are dump, stupid and mentally weak beyond all usual limits. > >> I tried to tell Mr. Lounesto that before he drowned >> in the Mediterranean Sea. > > Oh, and I forgot to tell you that you are a despicable > piece of dirt, you do not deserve to be considered as > a proper member of humanity. When the bunch of shit which > is called Robert Winn will die, decent people will celebrate. On the contrary. Robert Winn is a perfect gentleman with a good understanding of the reasons why Einstein's theory is bullshit from start to finish. It is quite obvious who are the 'dirty pieces of shit' on this NG. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba15a6dc-a55b-4e6c-a648-ca6ca78a1463@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428333 |
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 2:24:57 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > On 11/08/17 20:05, Python wrote: > > Filthy piece of dirt, Robert Winn wrote: > > >>> This is useless to continue, you'll die as an Idiot Jesuit. > >> > >> But I am not even a member of the Catholic church. > > > > You probably cannot understand a metaphor because of the cognitive > > disease of yours, which is deep, big and incurable. > > > > Jesuit were considered by their opponents in the Church as > > hypocritical, sly, disgustingly unworthy, without any kind > > of honour and pathologically lying. > > > > You are. But Jesuit was considered as clever too, while you > > are dump, stupid and mentally weak beyond all usual limits. > > > >> I tried to tell Mr. Lounesto that before he drowned > >> in the Mediterranean Sea. > > > > Oh, and I forgot to tell you that you are a despicable > > piece of dirt, you do not deserve to be considered as > > a proper member of humanity. When the bunch of shit which > > is called Robert Winn will die, decent people will celebrate. > > On the contrary. Robert Winn is a perfect gentleman with a good > understanding of the reasons why Einstein's theory is bullshit from > start to finish. It is quite obvious who are the 'dirty pieces of shit' > on this NG. > > > -- Thank you for the vote of confidence, HGW. What I do not understand is the lengths to which these people go to try to enforce their incorrect ideas. If I see someone with a wrong concept, and I try to correct his wrong idea, and the person says, No, I am going to continue with what I am doing, I just let the person do it. These people are intent that everyone is going to do things their way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-13 10:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <omo7vh$iku$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428369 |
On 12/08/17 12:11, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 2:24:57 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>> >>> Oh, and I forgot to tell you that you are a despicable piece of >>> dirt, you do not deserve to be considered as a proper member of >>> humanity. When the bunch of shit which is called Robert Winn >>> will die, decent people will celebrate. >> >> On the contrary. Robert Winn is a perfect gentleman with a good >> understanding of the reasons why Einstein's theory is bullshit from >> start to finish. It is quite obvious who are the 'dirty pieces of >> shit' on this NG. >> >> >> -- > > Thank you for the vote of confidence, HGW. What I do not understand > is the lengths to which these people go to try to enforce their > incorrect ideas. If I see someone with a wrong concept, and I try > to correct his wrong idea, and the person says, No, I am going to > continue with what I am doing, I just let the person do it. These > people are intent that everyone is going to do things their way. What worries me most is the way in which indoctrination can so seriously damage a mind that is clearly not 100%.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omhto5$q3a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428050 |
On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > t' is the time coordinate in S' Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a standard clock at rest in S'. But you have noticed that experiment has shown that the time actually exhibited by a standard clock at rest in S' is not what you might have expected from the equation t'=t, and so instead you said that the time shown on a standard clock at rest in S' is in fact not t' but some other variable. So on the one hand, you say you understand that t' is the time coordinate in S', and then on the other hand you say that some other variable is the time coordinate in S' instead of t'. So what you in fact claim to understand are two mutually contradictory statements, which is usually an indication that you, Robert, don't really understand what you claim to understand. This doesn't seem to bother you much, as all you're interested in doing is seeing who will discuss nonsense with you on usenet during your ample free time. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bc5c491-e69a-4d4a-a5b9-7dfbaf5575e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428058 |
W dniu czwartek, 10 sierpnia 2017 17:22:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > But you have noticed that experiment has shown that the time actually > exhibited by a standard clock at rest in S' is not what you might have > expected from the equation t'=t A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Standard clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0661f395-a32e-43a4-806b-4e1ffa1ffc19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428058 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > t' is the time coordinate in S' > > Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a > standard clock at rest in S'. > Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, gravitation, etc. That has supposedly been verified by experiment by numerous scientists. So, as t' pertains to the Galilean transformation equations, t'=t. t is the time of a clock at rest in S. If you have a clock with some other rate, including a standard clock at rest in S', then the time of that clock is not shown by t'. See the two little horizontal lines between t' and t? They are called an equal sign. That means that the time of a clock at rest is being used for time in both frames of reference. > But you have noticed that experiment has shown that the time actually > exhibited by a standard clock at rest in S' is not what you might have > expected from the equation t'=t, and so instead you said that the time > shown on a standard clock at rest in S' is in fact not t' but some other > variable. > > So on the one hand, you say you understand that t' is the time > coordinate in S', and then on the other hand you say that some other > variable is the time coordinate in S' instead of t'. So what you in fact > claim to understand are two mutually contradictory statements, which is > usually an indication that you, Robert, don't really understand what you > claim to understand. Look at the equations again. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t t' is the time coordinate in S' for this set of Galilean transformation equations. t'=t. t is the time of a clock at rest in S. If there is a clock with some other rate in S', including a standard clock at rest in S', this set of Galilean transformation equations says nothing about that clock. In order to describe that clock you have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity. That is the correct mathematical solution to the problem. So now you say that you and scientists want to do something else. Go ahead and do something else. The fact that you do something else does not change the Galilean transformation equations. > This doesn't seem to bother you much, as all you're interested in doing > is seeing who will discuss nonsense with you on usenet during your ample > free time. > No, you are wrong. I post the Galilean transformation equations from time to time in this newsgroup because they are the correct equations for relativity. I know how much it upsets you and other disciples of Einstein when I do this, but I do it anyway. Look at the charter of the newsgroup. There is nothing in the charter saying that the correct equations for relativity cannot be posted in sci.physics.relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 12:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omi4mf$150f$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428078 |
On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> t' is the time coordinate in S' >> >> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a >> standard clock at rest in S'. >> > Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, gravitation, etc. So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown by a standard clock at rest in S'. Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. So it seems that at one time of the day, you will say one thing, and then another time of the day, you will say the opposite, and so it's no wonder that people are fairly certain that you do not understand what you say you understand. I didn't read the rest, because in the sentence above, you illustrated the point so succinctly. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6967ab1-a245-4bec-a67b-c9213e5ff413@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428083 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> t' is the time coordinate in S' > >> > >> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a > >> standard clock at rest in S'. > >> > > Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, gravitation, etc. > > So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown > by a standard clock at rest in S'. > > Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. > It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, and since t'=t, a standard clock at rest in S' does not show t' as defined by the equations of this Galilean transformation. You have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations to show the time of that clock, as I have pointed out to you many times. > So it seems that at one time of the day, you will say one thing, and > then another time of the day, you will say the opposite, and so it's no > wonder that people are fairly certain that you do not understand what > you say you understand. > > I didn't read the rest, because in the sentence above, you illustrated > the point so succinctly. > You claim that scientists can put together a set of equations that show t as the time of a standard clock in S and t' as the time of a standard clock in S'. I have no opinion about that as yet, but the Lorentz equations are only an approximation of what you say you are trying to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omijhc$1scd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428110 |
On 8/10/17 3:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> t' is the time coordinate in S' >>>> >>>> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a >>>> standard clock at rest in S'. >>>> >>> Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, gravitation, etc. >> >> So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown >> by a standard clock at rest in S'. >> >> Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. >> > It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, So t' is the time coordinate in S', but a standard clock at rest in S' does not show that time coordinate. But a standard clock at rest in S DOES show t, the time coordinate in S. So here we have you saying that t and t' are time coordinates in S and S', respectively, but standard clocks at rest in each respective frame do and do not show that time coordinate. Hmmmm. So what do you think the words "time coordinate" mean? Isn't it clear that you're confused about something? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 16:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omiko6$1ugv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428129 |
On 8/10/17 4:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/17 3:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>> t' is the time coordinate in S' >>>>> >>>>> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a >>>>> standard clock at rest in S'. >>>>> >>>> Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' can >>>> show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, >>>> gravitation, etc. >>> >>> So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown >>> by a standard clock at rest in S'. >>> >>> Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. >>> >> It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a >> standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, > > So t' is the time coordinate in S', but a standard clock at rest in S' > does not show that time coordinate. > > But a standard clock at rest in S DOES show t, the time coordinate in S. > > So here we have you saying that t and t' are time coordinates in S and > S', respectively, but standard clocks at rest in each respective frame > do and do not show that time coordinate. Hmmmm. > > So what do you think the words "time coordinate" mean? > > Isn't it clear that you're confused about something? > > So let's just follow up with a recap of the things you've said, just in this thread, and just in conversation with me. - You've said that t' is the time coordinate in S' but a standard clock at rest in that frame doesn't read it. - You've said that, as far as you know, physicists can't tell the difference between two numbers that differ by 13 ppb in measurement, and so there's no way to discern the numbers from Lorentz equations and from your equations. - You've said that, as far as you know, the fastest visible thing in the solar system is Mercury, being apparently oblivious to comets and solar wind particles. - You've said that if Galileo was wrong about something, this means that people don't think the earth rotates. - You've said that if the Galilean transformation equations are wrong, then there must be an algebraic mistake in them. - You've said that the way to measure the speed of something is to calculate it. - You've said that if navy radar gives a distance, then this is good enough for you. - You've said that tying the second to the changing duration of a day is good enough for science, because there are people who don't even use clocks and only use the position of the sun in the sky. I have to admit to being impressed by how many ignorant comments you can make in such high concentration. It obviously makes you feel good to do this, or you wouldn't do it. I'm just trying to understand what would feel good about making a high concentration of ignorant remarks. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 17:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omilb2$1vpa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428132 |
On 8/10/17 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/17 4:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/10/17 3:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> t' is the time coordinate in S' >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a >>>>>> standard clock at rest in S'. >>>>>> >>>>> Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' >>>>> can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, >>>>> gravitation, etc. >>>> >>>> So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown >>>> by a standard clock at rest in S'. >>>> >>>> Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. >>>> >>> It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a >>> standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, >> >> So t' is the time coordinate in S', but a standard clock at rest in S' >> does not show that time coordinate. >> >> But a standard clock at rest in S DOES show t, the time coordinate in S. >> >> So here we have you saying that t and t' are time coordinates in S and >> S', respectively, but standard clocks at rest in each respective frame >> do and do not show that time coordinate. Hmmmm. >> >> So what do you think the words "time coordinate" mean? >> >> Isn't it clear that you're confused about something? >> >> > > So let's just follow up with a recap of the things you've said, just in > this thread, and just in conversation with me. > > - You've said that t' is the time coordinate in S' but a standard clock > at rest in that frame doesn't read it. > - You've said that, as far as you know, physicists can't tell the > difference between two numbers that differ by 13 ppb in measurement, and > so there's no way to discern the numbers from Lorentz equations and from > your equations. > - You've said that, as far as you know, the fastest visible thing in the > solar system is Mercury, being apparently oblivious to comets and solar > wind particles. > - You've said that if Galileo was wrong about something, this means that > people don't think the earth rotates. > - You've said that if the Galilean transformation equations are wrong, > then there must be an algebraic mistake in them. > - You've said that the way to measure the speed of something is to > calculate it. > - You've said that if navy radar gives a distance, then this is good > enough for you. > - You've said that tying the second to the changing duration of a day is > good enough for science, because there are people who don't even use > clocks and only use the position of the sun in the sky. > > I have to admit to being impressed by how many ignorant comments you can > make in such high concentration. It obviously makes you feel good to do > this, or you wouldn't do it. I'm just trying to understand what would > feel good about making a high concentration of ignorant remarks. > Now, Robert, I suppose you might read this and think that I said all this to make you feel inferior somehow, and that this is what makes you call me a scientist (which I'm not) and what makes you irritated with people like me. But I'll point out, Robert, that it was you that said all these things. And if you acknowledge that they're not really the wisest comments you could have made, then at least you're owning the responsibility for saying silly things. In that case, the only person you might want to have a stern conversation with is yourself, perhaps to remind yourself to at least TRY to not make so many silly comments in such a short interval of time in one place. I've found that such a practice is a good one in the long run. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <331cae46-5105-4155-8d2b-822f0c4a6105@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428134 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 3:05:34 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/17 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 8/10/17 4:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/10/17 3:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> t' is the time coordinate in S' > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a > >>>>>> standard clock at rest in S'. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' > >>>>> can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, > >>>>> gravitation, etc. > >>>> > >>>> So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown > >>>> by a standard clock at rest in S'. > >>>> > >>>> Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. > >>>> > >>> It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a > >>> standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, > >> > >> So t' is the time coordinate in S', but a standard clock at rest in S' > >> does not show that time coordinate. > >> > >> But a standard clock at rest in S DOES show t, the time coordinate in S. > >> > >> So here we have you saying that t and t' are time coordinates in S and > >> S', respectively, but standard clocks at rest in each respective frame > >> do and do not show that time coordinate. Hmmmm. > >> > >> So what do you think the words "time coordinate" mean? > >> > >> Isn't it clear that you're confused about something? > >> > >> > > > > So let's just follow up with a recap of the things you've said, just in > > this thread, and just in conversation with me. > > > > - You've said that t' is the time coordinate in S' but a standard clock > > at rest in that frame doesn't read it. > > - You've said that, as far as you know, physicists can't tell the > > difference between two numbers that differ by 13 ppb in measurement, and > > so there's no way to discern the numbers from Lorentz equations and from > > your equations. > > - You've said that, as far as you know, the fastest visible thing in the > > solar system is Mercury, being apparently oblivious to comets and solar > > wind particles. > > - You've said that if Galileo was wrong about something, this means that > > people don't think the earth rotates. > > - You've said that if the Galilean transformation equations are wrong, > > then there must be an algebraic mistake in them. > > - You've said that the way to measure the speed of something is to > > calculate it. > > - You've said that if navy radar gives a distance, then this is good > > enough for you. > > - You've said that tying the second to the changing duration of a day is > > good enough for science, because there are people who don't even use > > clocks and only use the position of the sun in the sky. > > > > I have to admit to being impressed by how many ignorant comments you can > > make in such high concentration. It obviously makes you feel good to do > > this, or you wouldn't do it. I'm just trying to understand what would > > feel good about making a high concentration of ignorant remarks. > > > > Now, Robert, I suppose you might read this and think that I said all > this to make you feel inferior somehow, and that this is what makes you > call me a scientist (which I'm not) and what makes you irritated with > people like me. > > But I'll point out, Robert, that it was you that said all these things. > And if you acknowledge that they're not really the wisest comments you > could have made, then at least you're owning the responsibility for > saying silly things. In that case, the only person you might want to > have a stern conversation with is yourself, perhaps to remind yourself > to at least TRY to not make so many silly comments in such a short > interval of time in one place. I've found that such a practice is a good > one in the long run. > Well, there is nothing wrong with any comments made by me. The problem is in your interpretation of comments made by me. So I just go back to the Galilean transformation equations and start again. That is the logical thing to do. Since the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations for relativity, I will always be on course, whereas, you and your scientist friends will never understand what you are talking about in such an educated manner. If you should ever change your mind and decide to discuss relativity, the option to do so is always there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 19:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omise6$ch5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428170 |
On 8/10/17 6:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 3:05:34 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/10/17 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/10/17 4:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/10/17 3:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> t' is the time coordinate in S' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a >>>>>>>> standard clock at rest in S'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' >>>>>>> can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, >>>>>>> gravitation, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown >>>>>> by a standard clock at rest in S'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. >>>>>> >>>>> It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a >>>>> standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, >>>> >>>> So t' is the time coordinate in S', but a standard clock at rest in S' >>>> does not show that time coordinate. >>>> >>>> But a standard clock at rest in S DOES show t, the time coordinate in S. >>>> >>>> So here we have you saying that t and t' are time coordinates in S and >>>> S', respectively, but standard clocks at rest in each respective frame >>>> do and do not show that time coordinate. Hmmmm. >>>> >>>> So what do you think the words "time coordinate" mean? >>>> >>>> Isn't it clear that you're confused about something? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So let's just follow up with a recap of the things you've said, just in >>> this thread, and just in conversation with me. >>> >>> - You've said that t' is the time coordinate in S' but a standard clock >>> at rest in that frame doesn't read it. >>> - You've said that, as far as you know, physicists can't tell the >>> difference between two numbers that differ by 13 ppb in measurement, and >>> so there's no way to discern the numbers from Lorentz equations and from >>> your equations. >>> - You've said that, as far as you know, the fastest visible thing in the >>> solar system is Mercury, being apparently oblivious to comets and solar >>> wind particles. >>> - You've said that if Galileo was wrong about something, this means that >>> people don't think the earth rotates. >>> - You've said that if the Galilean transformation equations are wrong, >>> then there must be an algebraic mistake in them. >>> - You've said that the way to measure the speed of something is to >>> calculate it. >>> - You've said that if navy radar gives a distance, then this is good >>> enough for you. >>> - You've said that tying the second to the changing duration of a day is >>> good enough for science, because there are people who don't even use >>> clocks and only use the position of the sun in the sky. >>> >>> I have to admit to being impressed by how many ignorant comments you can >>> make in such high concentration. It obviously makes you feel good to do >>> this, or you wouldn't do it. I'm just trying to understand what would >>> feel good about making a high concentration of ignorant remarks. >>> >> >> Now, Robert, I suppose you might read this and think that I said all >> this to make you feel inferior somehow, and that this is what makes you >> call me a scientist (which I'm not) and what makes you irritated with >> people like me. >> >> But I'll point out, Robert, that it was you that said all these things. >> And if you acknowledge that they're not really the wisest comments you >> could have made, then at least you're owning the responsibility for >> saying silly things. In that case, the only person you might want to >> have a stern conversation with is yourself, perhaps to remind yourself >> to at least TRY to not make so many silly comments in such a short >> interval of time in one place. I've found that such a practice is a good >> one in the long run. >> > Well, there is nothing wrong with any comments made by me. Well, there's the small matter of errors of fact, not to mention internal contradictions. If there is something inaccurate in how I have presented your statements, then please explain what is wrong in each case. > The problem is in your interpretation of comments made by me. So I just go back to the Galilean transformation equations and start again. That is the logical thing to do. Since the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations for relativity, I will always be on course, whereas, you and your scientist friends will never understand what you are talking about in such an educated manner. If you should ever change your mind and decide to discuss relativity, the option to do so is always there. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 19:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dede31d-444f-482e-b622-ca3e17e9f813@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428179 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 5:06:42 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/17 6:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 3:05:34 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/10/17 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 8/10/17 4:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/10/17 3:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> t' is the time coordinate in S' > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a > >>>>>>>> standard clock at rest in S'. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' > >>>>>>> can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, > >>>>>>> gravitation, etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown > >>>>>> by a standard clock at rest in S'. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. > >>>>>> > >>>>> It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a > >>>>> standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, > >>>> > >>>> So t' is the time coordinate in S', but a standard clock at rest in S' > >>>> does not show that time coordinate. > >>>> > >>>> But a standard clock at rest in S DOES show t, the time coordinate in S. > >>>> > >>>> So here we have you saying that t and t' are time coordinates in S and > >>>> S', respectively, but standard clocks at rest in each respective frame > >>>> do and do not show that time coordinate. Hmmmm. > >>>> > >>>> So what do you think the words "time coordinate" mean? > >>>> > >>>> Isn't it clear that you're confused about something? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> So let's just follow up with a recap of the things you've said, just in > >>> this thread, and just in conversation with me. > >>> > >>> - You've said that t' is the time coordinate in S' but a standard clock > >>> at rest in that frame doesn't read it. > >>> - You've said that, as far as you know, physicists can't tell the > >>> difference between two numbers that differ by 13 ppb in measurement, and > >>> so there's no way to discern the numbers from Lorentz equations and from > >>> your equations. > >>> - You've said that, as far as you know, the fastest visible thing in the > >>> solar system is Mercury, being apparently oblivious to comets and solar > >>> wind particles. > >>> - You've said that if Galileo was wrong about something, this means that > >>> people don't think the earth rotates. > >>> - You've said that if the Galilean transformation equations are wrong, > >>> then there must be an algebraic mistake in them. > >>> - You've said that the way to measure the speed of something is to > >>> calculate it. > >>> - You've said that if navy radar gives a distance, then this is good > >>> enough for you. > >>> - You've said that tying the second to the changing duration of a day is > >>> good enough for science, because there are people who don't even use > >>> clocks and only use the position of the sun in the sky. > >>> > >>> I have to admit to being impressed by how many ignorant comments you can > >>> make in such high concentration. It obviously makes you feel good to do > >>> this, or you wouldn't do it. I'm just trying to understand what would > >>> feel good about making a high concentration of ignorant remarks. > >>> > >> > >> Now, Robert, I suppose you might read this and think that I said all > >> this to make you feel inferior somehow, and that this is what makes you > >> call me a scientist (which I'm not) and what makes you irritated with > >> people like me. > >> > >> But I'll point out, Robert, that it was you that said all these things. > >> And if you acknowledge that they're not really the wisest comments you > >> could have made, then at least you're owning the responsibility for > >> saying silly things. In that case, the only person you might want to > >> have a stern conversation with is yourself, perhaps to remind yourself > >> to at least TRY to not make so many silly comments in such a short > >> interval of time in one place. I've found that such a practice is a good > >> one in the long run. > >> > > Well, there is nothing wrong with any comments made by me. > > Well, there's the small matter of errors of fact, not to mention > internal contradictions. If there is something inaccurate in how I have > presented your statements, then please explain what is wrong in each case. > > > The problem is in your interpretation of comments made by me. So I just go back to the Galilean transformation equations and start again. That is the logical thing to do. Since the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations for relativity, I will always be on course, whereas, you and your scientist friends will never understand what you are talking about in such an educated manner. If you should ever change your mind and decide to discuss relativity, the option to do so is always there. > > > You are the one who says you have found errors of fact. So go ahead and expound on your findings. I have already told you what I do. When you and your scientist friends try to change the subject, I just go back to the Galilean transformation equations, the correct equations for relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 08:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omkahc$13ae$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428193 |
On 8/10/17 9:53 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 5:06:42 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/10/17 6:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 3:05:34 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/10/17 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/10/17 4:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/10/17 3:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> t' is the time coordinate in S' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a >>>>>>>>>> standard clock at rest in S'. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' >>>>>>>>> can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, >>>>>>>>> gravitation, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown >>>>>>>> by a standard clock at rest in S'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a >>>>>>> standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, >>>>>> >>>>>> So t' is the time coordinate in S', but a standard clock at rest in S' >>>>>> does not show that time coordinate. >>>>>> >>>>>> But a standard clock at rest in S DOES show t, the time coordinate in S. >>>>>> >>>>>> So here we have you saying that t and t' are time coordinates in S and >>>>>> S', respectively, but standard clocks at rest in each respective frame >>>>>> do and do not show that time coordinate. Hmmmm. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what do you think the words "time coordinate" mean? >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't it clear that you're confused about something? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So let's just follow up with a recap of the things you've said, just in >>>>> this thread, and just in conversation with me. >>>>> >>>>> - You've said that t' is the time coordinate in S' but a standard clock >>>>> at rest in that frame doesn't read it. >>>>> - You've said that, as far as you know, physicists can't tell the >>>>> difference between two numbers that differ by 13 ppb in measurement, and >>>>> so there's no way to discern the numbers from Lorentz equations and from >>>>> your equations. >>>>> - You've said that, as far as you know, the fastest visible thing in the >>>>> solar system is Mercury, being apparently oblivious to comets and solar >>>>> wind particles. >>>>> - You've said that if Galileo was wrong about something, this means that >>>>> people don't think the earth rotates. >>>>> - You've said that if the Galilean transformation equations are wrong, >>>>> then there must be an algebraic mistake in them. >>>>> - You've said that the way to measure the speed of something is to >>>>> calculate it. >>>>> - You've said that if navy radar gives a distance, then this is good >>>>> enough for you. >>>>> - You've said that tying the second to the changing duration of a day is >>>>> good enough for science, because there are people who don't even use >>>>> clocks and only use the position of the sun in the sky. >>>>> >>>>> I have to admit to being impressed by how many ignorant comments you can >>>>> make in such high concentration. It obviously makes you feel good to do >>>>> this, or you wouldn't do it. I'm just trying to understand what would >>>>> feel good about making a high concentration of ignorant remarks. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Now, Robert, I suppose you might read this and think that I said all >>>> this to make you feel inferior somehow, and that this is what makes you >>>> call me a scientist (which I'm not) and what makes you irritated with >>>> people like me. >>>> >>>> But I'll point out, Robert, that it was you that said all these things. >>>> And if you acknowledge that they're not really the wisest comments you >>>> could have made, then at least you're owning the responsibility for >>>> saying silly things. In that case, the only person you might want to >>>> have a stern conversation with is yourself, perhaps to remind yourself >>>> to at least TRY to not make so many silly comments in such a short >>>> interval of time in one place. I've found that such a practice is a good >>>> one in the long run. >>>> >>> Well, there is nothing wrong with any comments made by me. >> >> Well, there's the small matter of errors of fact, not to mention >> internal contradictions. If there is something inaccurate in how I have >> presented your statements, then please explain what is wrong in each case. >> >>> The problem is in your interpretation of comments made by me. So I just go back to the Galilean transformation equations and start again. That is the logical thing to do. Since the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations for relativity, I will always be on course, whereas, you and your scientist friends will never understand what you are talking about in such an educated manner. If you should ever change your mind and decide to discuss relativity, the option to do so is always there. >>> >> > You are the one who says you have found errors of fact. So go ahead and expound on your findings. I already did. They're listed above. Now, it's plain that you cannot read. > I have already told you what I do. When you and your scientist friends try to change the subject, I just go back to the Galilean transformation equations, the correct equations for relativity. > Well, you see, Robert, the subject for me is how frequently you utter nonsense, a short sample of which from one conversation with one person is given above. This may not be the subject you want to talk about, and so you try to change the subject of discussion to the Galilean transformations. But Robert, the point is that the discussion with you about Galilean transformations is useless because it is peppered so liberally with nonsense. So the peppering with nonsense is the subject matter. Are you not aware of that? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25900d01-ca63-4807-8060-15968028daec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428236 |
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:13:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/17 9:53 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 5:06:42 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/10/17 6:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 3:05:34 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/10/17 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> On 8/10/17 4:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/10/17 3:22 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:21:32 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/10/17 11:46 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:22:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/17 9:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> t' is the time coordinate in S' > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Robert, that is right, t' is the time coordinate as shown by a > >>>>>>>>>> standard clock at rest in S'. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well, here is where we disagree. A standard clock at rest in S' > >>>>>>>>> can show all kinds of time, depending on conditions of motion, > >>>>>>>>> gravitation, etc. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So now you are saying that t' is NOT the time coordinate in S' as shown > >>>>>>>> by a standard clock at rest in S'. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just a little while ago, you said it IS the time coordinate in S'. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is the time coordinate in S'. The problem you have is that a > >>>>>>> standard clock at rest in S' does not show the same time as t, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So t' is the time coordinate in S', but a standard clock at rest in S' > >>>>>> does not show that time coordinate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a standard clock at rest in S DOES show t, the time coordinate in S. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So here we have you saying that t and t' are time coordinates in S and > >>>>>> S', respectively, but standard clocks at rest in each respective frame > >>>>>> do and do not show that time coordinate. Hmmmm. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So what do you think the words "time coordinate" mean? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Isn't it clear that you're confused about something? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So let's just follow up with a recap of the things you've said, just in > >>>>> this thread, and just in conversation with me. > >>>>> > >>>>> - You've said that t' is the time coordinate in S' but a standard clock > >>>>> at rest in that frame doesn't read it. > >>>>> - You've said that, as far as you know, physicists can't tell the > >>>>> difference between two numbers that differ by 13 ppb in measurement, and > >>>>> so there's no way to discern the numbers from Lorentz equations and from > >>>>> your equations. > >>>>> - You've said that, as far as you know, the fastest visible thing in the > >>>>> solar system is Mercury, being apparently oblivious to comets and solar > >>>>> wind particles. > >>>>> - You've said that if Galileo was wrong about something, this means that > >>>>> people don't think the earth rotates. > >>>>> - You've said that if the Galilean transformation equations are wrong, > >>>>> then there must be an algebraic mistake in them. > >>>>> - You've said that the way to measure the speed of something is to > >>>>> calculate it. > >>>>> - You've said that if navy radar gives a distance, then this is good > >>>>> enough for you. > >>>>> - You've said that tying the second to the changing duration of a day is > >>>>> good enough for science, because there are people who don't even use > >>>>> clocks and only use the position of the sun in the sky. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have to admit to being impressed by how many ignorant comments you can > >>>>> make in such high concentration. It obviously makes you feel good to do > >>>>> this, or you wouldn't do it. I'm just trying to understand what would > >>>>> feel good about making a high concentration of ignorant remarks. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Now, Robert, I suppose you might read this and think that I said all > >>>> this to make you feel inferior somehow, and that this is what makes you > >>>> call me a scientist (which I'm not) and what makes you irritated with > >>>> people like me. > >>>> > >>>> But I'll point out, Robert, that it was you that said all these things. > >>>> And if you acknowledge that they're not really the wisest comments you > >>>> could have made, then at least you're owning the responsibility for > >>>> saying silly things. In that case, the only person you might want to > >>>> have a stern conversation with is yourself, perhaps to remind yourself > >>>> to at least TRY to not make so many silly comments in such a short > >>>> interval of time in one place. I've found that such a practice is a good > >>>> one in the long run. > >>>> > >>> Well, there is nothing wrong with any comments made by me. > >> > >> Well, there's the small matter of errors of fact, not to mention > >> internal contradictions. If there is something inaccurate in how I have > >> presented your statements, then please explain what is wrong in each case. > >> > >>> The problem is in your interpretation of comments made by me. So I just go back to the Galilean transformation equations and start again. That is the logical thing to do. Since the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations for relativity, I will always be on course, whereas, you and your scientist friends will never understand what you are talking about in such an educated manner. If you should ever change your mind and decide to discuss relativity, the option to do so is always there. > >>> > >> > > You are the one who says you have found errors of fact. So go ahead and expound on your findings. > > I already did. They're listed above. Now, it's plain that you cannot read. > > > I have already told you what I do. When you and your scientist friends try to change the subject, I just go back to the Galilean transformation equations, the correct equations for relativity. > > > > Well, you see, Robert, the subject for me is how frequently you utter > nonsense, a short sample of which from one conversation with one person > is given above. This may not be the subject you want to talk about, and > so you try to change the subject of discussion to the Galilean > transformations. But Robert, the point is that the discussion with you > about Galilean transformations is useless because it is peppered so > liberally with nonsense. So the peppering with nonsense is the subject > matter. Are you not aware of that? > I am aware that you do not want to discuss relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 08:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omkcdo$1a6q$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428241 |
On 8/11/17 8:23 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:13:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Well, you see, Robert, the subject for me is how frequently you utter >> nonsense, a short sample of which from one conversation with one person >> is given above. This may not be the subject you want to talk about, and >> so you try to change the subject of discussion to the Galilean >> transformations. But Robert, the point is that the discussion with you >> about Galilean transformations is useless because it is peppered so >> liberally with nonsense. So the peppering with nonsense is the subject >> matter. Are you not aware of that? >> > I am aware that you do not want to discuss relativity. > Not with someone who spouts nonsense as frequently as you do, Robert. I will discuss with you how frequently you spout nonsense, since that in fact dominates what you say. If you'd like to discuss relativity, you could try enabling that by spouting nonsense a whole lot less frequently. You see? Simple. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web