Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #465107 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-21 05:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-03 10:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 442 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 05:44 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-21 13:25 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-21 06:35 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-21 08:56 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 07:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 10:01 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 10:23 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 12:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 20:23 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 13:31 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 23:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-22 08:01 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-22 15:25 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:40 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-23 05:38 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-23 14:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-23 12:48 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-23 19:04 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-27 12:04 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 14:47 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 00:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-24 02:19 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 13:08 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 18:30 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 11:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 19:04 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 20:56 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 09:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 09:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 11:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 12:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 20:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 22:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:49 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 08:37 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendm.dp> - 2018-07-26 11:11 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-27 11:52 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 04:39 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 04:46 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 00:52 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:49 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 13:17 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 18:27 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:24 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:52 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-24 06:14 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:46 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 12:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 05:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-25 07:58 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-21 23:59 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-22 13:46 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-22 17:59 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-22 18:25 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-22 07:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-22 18:01 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 07:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 12:15 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:30 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 16:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-21 21:40 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:50 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 00:46 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-22 13:42 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 16:25 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 02:41 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 00:30 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 23:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 09:03 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-22 18:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-22 11:51 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-23 09:25 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:08 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 22:30 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 23:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 09:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-23 23:48 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 09:46 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-22 09:21 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 13:55 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ap> - 2018-08-04 13:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 15:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimde.as> - 2018-08-04 13:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-07-21 07:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-21 14:21 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-21 16:47 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 02:01 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-22 01:24 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 08:23 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 10:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 13:55 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 21:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 02:07 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 03:19 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 06:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-23 14:13 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:55 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 08:16 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 11:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultane, the ball reaches me,> in about 4 units of time, while it reaches me in about 8 units of time if I,> run away at 1 unit of length per unit time, while the ball is traveling at 2,> units of length per unit time (twice as fast as me). (All as measured by you.),> ,> And if I run towards the ball, it reaches me earlier than if I stay put.,> (Drawing the corresponding diagram is left as an exercise to the reader.),> ,>>> While traveling, the signal also has to catch up with the destination in the,>>> first case,,>>,>> Indeed it does, which is why the light path is r_AB + v*(t_B - t_A) and,>> not just r_AB as represented in Einstein equations above.ity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 08:52 +0100
Relativity of simultaneity (RoS) (was: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 12:34 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:10 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 12:50 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 12:37 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 14:24 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 18:34 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 20:09 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:17 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 20:28 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 03:22 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 04:38 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 01:02 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-23 23:23 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 09:11 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 06:04 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 01:54 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 06:52 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:14 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 13:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 13:47 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 21:04 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 07:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 16:53 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 15:33 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-26 13:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 21:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 05:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 07:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 15:28 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 09:14 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 01:03 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-26 21:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 12:13 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-27 05:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 07:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 07:41 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 15:21 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 15:36 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 17:20 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 17:49 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-27 20:13 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 15:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 15:25 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:39 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 06:37 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 14:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 09:25 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 17:36 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 14:30 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 22:44 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-29 08:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 02:38 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-30 06:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 01:47 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:39 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 16:05 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 23:32 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 20:29 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 22:35 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:13 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-26 04:54 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:49 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-26 09:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 00:01 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-26 16:16 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 09:44 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-27 05:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:26 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 07:44 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 16:51 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 10:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 14:53 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:39 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-27 16:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 23:23 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 02:35 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 06:22 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 14:00 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 09:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 17:36 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-28 14:33 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 22:44 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 10:11 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 12:03 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 14:19 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 17:27 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 18:54 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 20:08 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:18 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 20:22 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:54 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 21:00 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-07-30 10:45 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 20:13 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 22:28 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 20:52 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-29 08:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 17:28 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-29 08:38 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 18:52 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-29 13:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 02:15 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-30 11:13 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-30 14:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 21:52 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-31 15:22 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 16:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 07:12 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:13 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-01 15:17 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 12:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:47 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 07:49 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 14:49 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 17:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 17:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 09:30 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-03 12:47 -0400
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 14:14 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 22:13 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 07:10 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-03 18:40 -0400
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 07:14 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 14:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 16:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 21:58 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 07:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 12:37 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-04 12:55 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 13:32 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll> - 2018-08-04 21:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 17:23 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-04 22:16 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll> - 2018-08-05 11:43 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:45 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 11:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 17:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 11:25 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-05 05:44 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-05 09:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:47 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 20:21 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 15:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-05 13:59 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-05 21:21 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 06:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-10 17:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-11 10:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 18:49 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-05 21:30 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 21:32 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-05 21:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-06 09:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 16:31 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 16:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:39 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-07 04:17 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-07 04:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:33 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-07 05:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 16:43 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 11:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 11:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-06 11:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 18:55 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 12:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 12:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 21:41 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-07 05:38 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 13:16 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-07 08:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-12 16:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 18:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-12 21:49 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 08:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:33 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-13 08:01 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 15:42 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-13 12:26 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 20:31 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 21:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-14 08:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 17:06 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-14 10:43 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-15 06:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-15 15:09 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 07:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 13:20 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-15 08:32 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 07:33 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 14:58 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 08:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 09:11 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 08:40 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 18:42 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-17 05:53 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 06:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:22 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-17 07:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 08:41 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:53 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-17 09:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 17:06 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-17 21:21 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 21:43 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:09 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 09:18 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:30 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 11:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:10 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-18 11:18 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Icano Bologna <ob@woccgn.cc> - 2018-08-18 18:22 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 18:32 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-18 13:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 21:16 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Icano Bologna <ob@woccgn.cc> - 2018-08-19 11:17 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-19 08:04 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:08 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 08:51 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 18:42 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 10:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 07:53 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:05 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 08:26 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 17:27 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 10:38 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-16 11:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-16 18:40 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 11:04 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-13 14:34 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 17:30 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 01:45 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 07:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:14 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 12:03 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:38 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 07:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:10 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 13:05 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-01 13:42 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-01 22:49 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 08:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 15:16 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 14:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 14:31 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:00 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 05:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 11:50 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 11:57 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 06:29 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 06:45 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 08:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 09:36 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:48 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-03 14:23 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:27 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 06:59 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 08:34 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:10 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-04 07:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 05:56 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 06:58 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:54 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-02 07:04 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 14:44 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:52 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-10 18:30 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-10 17:24 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:13 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-26 10:25 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 23:28 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:20 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-21 09:33 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-21 10:09 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:15 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 12:32 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 12:58 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 13:12 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 20:23 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 18:06 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-21 21:06 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 23:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-22 07:39 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-22 18:00 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 07:28 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-23 21:36 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 05:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 07:12 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 14:14 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 07:59 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 08:15 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 08:46 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 15:56 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 09:24 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:32 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 14:07 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 21:18 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 15:56 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 10:41 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:33 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-24 20:35 -0500
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:25 +0100
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 05:05 +0200
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-24 09:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:25 +0000
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-23 08:20 -0700
Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-03 10:45 -0700
Page 6 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 23 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-04 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a6faed18-fe9d-e7c1-2631-7bf37363aaea@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466821 |
The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Ecký Zcitná" <ifmv@bsimdo.ap>:
^^^^^^^^^
> the unemployable cretin Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Dr. "Wayne Dial"<ulau@ydwendn.dp>:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> That absolute frame, of course, destroys the PoR in the
>>>> electrodynamics of the time; the PoR was still applied in
>>>> mechanics. In 1905 Einstein showed how to apply the PoR to
>>>> electrodynamics, which led the way to a unified theory of mechanics
>>>> and electrodynamics, with spectacular success.
>>>
>>> Not sure is the right term, right now. Dynamics involves
>>> oscillations, damping, poles, zeros, critical region, instability and
>>> alike. Not the steady state. The 1905e was of a _steady state_
>>> domain.
>>
>> Sadly, you still have no clue what you are talking about.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light> *PLONK*
>
> This uneducated imbecile is exposing himself again,
Indeed you are. Einstein’s goal, which he achieved, was to reconcile
Maxwell’s electrodynamics with Galilei’s principle of relativity.
> here by not knowing what the term _dynamics_ stands for in Math> and Physics. […]
In physics (which like “math” is usually NOT written with a capital letter)
it refers to MOTION, from the Greek word «δύναμις» dynamis which means
“power” or “force”.
In general, it refers to things that CHANGE, such as the electric and
magnetic fields in an electromagnetic wave. An electromagnetic wave
MOVES through space this way. Also, according to Maxwell, light is an
electromagnetic wave. Therefore *electro*dynamics.
And the paper that you call "1905e" has the (translated) title “On the
ELECTRODYNAMICS of Moving Bodies”. The word “electrodynamics” occurs
SEVERAL TIMES in the paper, and the second section has the (translated)
title “ELECTRODYNAMICAL PART”.
*PLONK*
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimde.as> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-04 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk4alo$omr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466823 |
the unemployable cretin Thomas 'PigEars' Lahn wrote: > Dr. "Ecký Zcitná" <ifmv@bsimdo.ap>: >> the unemployable cretin Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Dr. "Wayne Dial"<ulau@ydwendn.dp>: >>>> Not sure is the right term, right now. Dynamics involves >>>> oscillations, >>>> damping, poles, zeros, critical region, instability and alike. Not >>>> the steady state. The 1905e was of a _steady state_ domain. >>> >>> Sadly, you still have no clue what you are talking about. >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light> *PLONK* >> >> This uneducated imbecile is exposing himself again, >> here by not knowing what the term _dynamics_ stands for in Math> and >> Physics. […] > > In physics (which like “math” is usually NOT written with a capital > letter) And here we go, the uneducated gnome PigEars snipping the juicy part proving him worse than unemployable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3f270fe-7cfc-43de-9f4f-ad633b2bc66a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465107 |
On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 5:44:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) > Why? Still at it, Ken Shito?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 14:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pivfhh$mv7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465107 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) >Why? >The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the laws >of physics in the train moving wrt me. That means that if I found two >events in my frame to be simultaneous, the train observer must also find >the two identical events in his frame to be simultaneous. No, Stupid Ken, it does not mean that. The PoR states the laws of physics are the same, not that the results with different conditions are the same. What you said is like claiming that dropping a pebble and dropping a large rock have to hit the ground with the same force because the laws of gravity are the same for both the pebble and the rock. >Einstein knew this, but he needed the PoR to cancel out the paradoxes >derived from his P2 There are no paradoxes from P2. >and that's why he introduced the PoR as a concept and not as a postulate. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie? From "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905" (translation at https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." Did you see this, Stupid Ken? "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a postulate, ..." This is why you are called Stupid Ken, Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 16:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pivh25$1g97$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465122 |
Op 21-jul-2018 om 16:21 schreef Michael Moroney: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) >> Why? >> The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the laws >> of physics in the train moving wrt me. That means that if I found two >> events in my frame to be simultaneous, the train observer must also find >> the two identical events in his frame to be simultaneous. > > No, Stupid Ken, it does not mean that. The PoR states the laws of physics > are the same, not that the results with different conditions are the same. > What you said is like claiming that dropping a pebble and dropping a large > rock have to hit the ground with the same force because the laws of > gravity are the same for both the pebble and the rock. > >> Einstein knew this, but he needed the PoR to cancel out the paradoxes >> derived from his P2 > > There are no paradoxes from P2. > >> and that's why he introduced the PoR as a concept and not as a postulate. > > You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie? He probably meant to say that he introduced the RoS as a concept and not as a postulate. A typo. Lying takes a minimal amount of intelligence. You are severely overestimating Ken Seto. Dirk Vdm > > From "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > By A. Einstein > June 30, 1905" > > (translation at https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) > > "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of > small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be > valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics > hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will > hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a > postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in > empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state > of motion of the emitting body." > > Did you see this, Stupid Ken? "We will raise this conjecture (the purport > of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the > status of a postulate, ..." > > This is why you are called Stupid Ken, Stupid Ken. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 02:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BHQ4D.637765$Lp4.3618@fx03.am4> |
| In reply to | #465122 |
On 21/07/2018 15:21, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) >> Why? >> The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the laws >> of physics in the train moving wrt me. That means that if I found two >> events in my frame to be simultaneous, the train observer must also find' >> the two identical events in his frame to be simultaneous. > > No, Stupid Ken, it does not mean that. The PoR states the laws of physics > are the same, not that the results with different conditions are the same. > What you said is like claiming that dropping a pebble and dropping a large > rock have to hit the ground with the same force because the laws of > gravity are the same for both the pebble and the rock. No, Stupid Michael, rather it is like saying that if the rock and the pebble hit the ground simultaneously, then all observers everywhere must agree that the rock and the pebble hit the ground simultaneously, and prior to Einstein's confused and erroneous arguments, given in the paper you cite below, no one would have doubted that eh! > From "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > By A. Einstein > June 30, 1905" > > (translation at https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) > > "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of > small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be > valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics > hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will > hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a > postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in > empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state > of motion of the emitting body." > > Did you see this, Stupid Ken? "We will raise this conjecture (the purport > of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the > status of a postulate, ..." Did you see the following equations a little further on in that same Einstein paper, Stupid Michael? (t_B - t_ A)= r_AB / (c-v) and (t_A' - t_B)= r_AB / (c+v) and can you see that "v" is an independent variable which appears only in the RHS of the equations, so that if the equations are correct at v=0 they cannot possible be correct at any other value of v. Do you see that Stupid Michael. And do you see how from these incorrect equations Einstein comes to the incorrect conclusion that: "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system." I bet you can't see what is wrong with Einstein's reasoning here, which is why i call you stupid Michael, Stupid Michael. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 01:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj0mcd$mtv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465193 |
Stupid Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >>> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) >>> Why? >>> The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the laws >>> of physics in the train moving wrt me. That means that if I found two >>> events in my frame to be simultaneous, the train observer must also find' >>> the two identical events in his frame to be simultaneous. >> >> No, Stupid Ken, it does not mean that. The PoR states the laws of physics >> are the same, not that the results with different conditions are the same. >> What you said is like claiming that dropping a pebble and dropping a large >> rock have to hit the ground with the same force because the laws of >> gravity are the same for both the pebble and the rock. >No, Stupid Michael, rather it is like saying that if the rock and the >pebble hit the ground simultaneously, then all observers everywhere must >agree that the rock and the pebble hit the ground simultaneously, and >prior to Einstein's confused and erroneous arguments, given in the paper >you cite below, no one would have doubted that eh! >> Did you see this, Stupid Ken? "We will raise this conjecture (the purport >> of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the >> status of a postulate, ..." >Did you see the following equations a little further on in that same >Einstein paper, Stupid Michael? > (t_B - t_ A)= r_AB / (c-v) and (t_A' - t_B)= r_AB / (c+v) >and can you see that "v" is an independent variable which appears >only in the RHS of the equations, so that if the equations are >correct at v=0 they cannot possible be correct at any other value >of v. Do you see that Stupid Michael. Stupid Keith, I do see that. Notice that Einstein states that observers on the moving rod see the two clocks as not synchronized while the stationary system observers see the clocks as synchronized. Which essentially means that if some event happens at 12:00 on each of the clocks, the stationary observers see the events as simultaneous while the moving observers see them happen at different times (not simultaneous) That demonstrates the relativity of simultaneity, which was Einstein's point. I do hope you can understand that, Stupid Keith.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 08:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <GhW4D.2406649$zX7.138196@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #465195 |
On 22/07/2018 02:24, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Stupid Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
And do you see how from these incorrect equations Einstein comes to
the incorrect conclusion that:
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system
of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as
simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion
relatively to that system."
>> Did you see the following equations a little further on in that same
>> Einstein paper, Stupid Michael?
>
>> (t_B - t_ A)= r_AB / (c-v) and (t_A' - t_B)= r_AB / (c+v)
>
>> and can you see that "v" is an independent variable which appears
>> only in the RHS of the equations, so that if the equations are
>> correct at v=0 they cannot possible be correct at any other value
>> of v. Do you see that Stupid Michael.
>
> Stupid Keith, I do see that.
Excellent Michael. Well if you can indeed see that the above equations
are very clearly and definitely WRONG, then you can't be entirely
stupid, so from now on i shall address you simply as Michael eh!
> Notice that Einstein states that observers
> on the moving rod see the two clocks as not synchronized while the
> stationary system observers see the clocks as synchronized.
Rather does Einstein attempt to prove that the above must be true,
and since he does this from the erroneous equations given above,
his conclusion as to the relativity of simultaneous, is just as
erroneous as his equations.
> Which
> essentially means that if some event happens at 12:00 on each of the
> clocks, the stationary observers see the events as simultaneous while
> the moving observers see them happen at different times (not simultaneous)
I know what it means Michael, and i see how Einstein arrived at that
revolutionary conclusion (about the relativity of simultaneity) directly
from those erroneous equations i quote above.
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905"
(translation at https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/)
Which is why i do not accept the relativity of simultaneity eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 10:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c297f7f7-8195-3cfa-d159-888d8d2603ac@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #465210 |
Keith Stein wrote: > And do you see how from these incorrect equations […] They are not incorrect. In a nutshell: A signal takes a longer time to reach its destination if the destination is moving away from the source of the signal, less time to reach its destination if the destination moves towards the source of the signal, than if the destination does not move: While traveling, the signal also has to catch up with the destination in the first case, and the destination is also catching up with the signal in the second case. So two equidistant¹ moving clocks synchronized by a signal that is traveling along their line of motion will never be synchronous for an observer who says that they are moving: the signal reaches the leading clock *after* it reaches the trailing clock. The leading clock “lags” (the trailing clock). As proper clocks are merely instruments that measure (proper) time, *time* is NOT the same in all different equidistant spatial positions in a frame of reference that *is* moving relative to the frame of reference in which the observer is at rest. But as the synchronization signal takes the *same* (proper) time to all equidistant clocks if they are not moving away/towards from the source of the signal, time *is* the same in all different spatial positions in a frame of reference that is NOT moving relative to the observer, i.e. if the observer is co-moving with the clocks. This is the *relativity* of simultaneity (RoS). HTH ______ ¹ same spatial distance from the source of the signal -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 13:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <h9%4D.1679073$%L2.414448@fx40.am4> |
| In reply to | #465214 |
On 22/07/2018 09:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
>> And do you see how from these incorrect equations […]
>
> They are not incorrect.
> (t_B - t_ A)= r_AB / (c-v) and (t_A' - t_B)= r_AB / (c+v)
They most certainly are incorrect, because as i told you before:
".............. "v" is an independent variable which appears
only in the RHS of the equations, so that if the equations are
correct at v=0 they cannot possibly be correct at any other value."
> In a nutshell:
>
> A signal takes a longer time to reach its destination if the destination is
> moving away from the source of the signal, less time to reach its
> destination if the destination moves towards the source of the signal, than
> if the destination does not move:
And that Thomas, is an elegant and precise desciption of the
relativist's error, so "Well Done" for doing that eh!
In fact a signal takes exactly the same time to reach its destination
no matter who is looking at it i.e. it takes "t_B - t_A", whatever the
value of "v" eh!
> While traveling, the signal also has to catch up with the destination in the
> first case,
Indeed it does, which is why the light path is r_AB + v*(t_B - t_A) and
not just r_AB as represented in Einstein equations above.
> So two equidistant¹ moving clocks synchronized by a signal that is traveling
> along their line of motion will never be synchronous for an observer who
> says that they are moving: the signal reaches the leading clock *after* it
> reaches the trailing clock. The leading clock “lags” (the trailing clock).
NO! Clocks which are synchronized, ARE SYNCHRONIZED , in all frames,
but even if that were not so, nevertheless, since the times are measured
by clocks which are stationary in the frame of reference in which the
rod is stationary, the difference "t_B - t_A" (in Einstein's first
equation above ) MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL OBSERVERS.
So I repeat Einstein's two equations given above can not possible
be correct, since the LHS of the equations is independent of the value
os"v",
whereas the value of the RHS clearly WILL depend on the value of "v".
When you have understood that, and it really is not difficult Thomas,
then we can begin your education .in good old "Classical Physics" eh!
keith stein
i
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b03092a6-fabb-6c8c-8310-8c20e40c571d@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #465218 |
Keith Stein wrote:
> On 22/07/2018 09:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>> And do you see how from these incorrect equations […]
>>
>> They are not incorrect.
>
> > (t_B - t_ A)= r_AB / (c-v) and (t_A' - t_B)= r_AB / (c+v)
>
> They most certainly are incorrect,
But they are not, as you will see shortly.
> because as i told you before:
>
> ".............. "v" is an independent variable which appears
> only in the RHS of the equations, so that if the equations are
> correct at v=0 they cannot possibly be correct at any other value."
What you said is nonsense. “v” is the symbol for the relative inertial
speed of one frame of reference to the other –
v = ∆x∕∆t
– where x and t are measured in the frame that is defined not to be moving
(rest frame).
>> In a nutshell:
>>
>> A signal takes a longer time to reach its destination if the destination is
>> moving away from the source of the signal, less time to reach its
>> destination if the destination moves towards the source of the signal, than
>> if the destination does not move:
>
> And that Thomas, is an elegant and precise desciption of the
> relativist's error, so "Well Done" for doing that
Do you deny that it takes a signal more time to reach its destination
if the destination moves away from (the source of) the signal?
> eh!
What is the point of those utterances?
> In fact a signal takes exactly the same time to reach its destination
> no matter who is looking at it
No, the distance between the source and the destination has increased
compared to the stationary case, and the signal is not getting faster just
because something moves away from it. So it takes the signal more time to
reach its destination than in the stationary case.
Not entirely equivalent, but think of a ball (light) that you are rolling
(shining) towards me. Instead of staying where I am, I am running away from
you and the ball (light). But I cannot outrun the ball (light [because I
cannot travel at the speed of light]): eventually the ball (light) will
catch up with me (as light is hundreds of thousand times faster than me).
It has to travel the extra distance that I moved away while it was catching
up with me, and for that it requires more time than if I had stayed where
I was.
Stationary case
================
time: 0
--------
ball
:o :
Keith Thomas
time: 1
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 2
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 3
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 4
--------
ball
: o:
Keith Thomas
Moving case
============
time: 0
--------
ball
:o :
Keith Thomas
time: 1
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 2
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 3
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 4
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 5
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 6
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 7
--------
ball
: o :
Keith Thomas
time: 8
--------
ball
: o:
Keith Thomas
I hope that you can see clearly now that if I stay put, the ball reaches me
in about 4 units of time, while it reaches me in about 8 units of time if I
run away at 1 unit of length per unit time, while the ball is traveling at 2
units of length per unit time (twice as fast as me). (All as measured by you.)
And if I run towards the ball, it reaches me earlier than if I stay put.
(Drawing the corresponding diagram is left as an exercise to the reader.)
>> While traveling, the signal also has to catch up with the destination in the
>> first case,
>
> Indeed it does, which is why the light path is r_AB + v*(t_B - t_A) and
> not just r_AB as represented in Einstein equations above.
The path of light in the direction of motion (from A to B) *is* *indeed*
s_AB = r_AB + v (t_B − t_A)
[Einstein just does not state that explicitly in his paper. A reason
could be that his paper was supposed to be read by *physicists* who
do not need to be concerned with such trivialities].
By definition, the light has traveled that distance in the time t_B − t_A:
c = s_AB∕∆t
∆t = s_AB∕c
t_B − t_A = [r_AB + v (t_B − t_A)]∕c.
Solve for t_B − t_A:
c (t_B − t_A) = r_AB + v (t_B − t_A)
c (t_B − t_A) − v (t_B − t_A) = r_AB
(c − v) (t_B − t_A) = r_AB
t_B − t_A = r_AB∕(c − v) ∎
The path of light against the direction of motion (from B to A) is
s_BA = r_AB − v (t'_A − t_B).
By definition, the light has traveled that distance in the time t'_A − t_B:
t'_A − t_B = [r_AB − v (t'_A − t_B)]∕c.
Solve for t'_A − t_B:
c (t'_A − t_B) = r_AB − v (t'_A − t_B)
c (t'_A − t_B) + v (t'_A − t_B) = r_AB
(c + v) (t'_A − t_B) = r_AB
t'_A − t_B = r_AB∕(c + v) ∎
[BTW, Einstein used “V” for the speed of light in his paper, so you are
not even quoting the original or the official translation. Be wary of
second-hand sources.]
>> So two equidistant¹ moving clocks synchronized by a signal that is traveling
>> along their line of motion will never be synchronous for an observer who
>> says that they are moving: the signal reaches the leading clock *after* it
>> reaches the trailing clock. The leading clock “lags” (the trailing clock).
>
> NO! Clocks which are synchronized, ARE SYNCHRONIZED , in all frames,
No, the observed fact that the speed of light is the same in all frames of
reference makes that impossible.
> but even if that were not so,
It is not so, obviously.
> nevertheless, since the times are measured by clocks which are
> stationary in the frame of reference in which the rod is stationary,
Which rod?
> the difference "t_B - t_A" (in Einstein's first
> equation above ) MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL OBSERVERS.
No, only for the observer co-moving with the clocks the paths
that light has traveled forward and back have equal length.
> So I repeat Einstein's two equations given above can not possible
> be correct,
(_possibly_)
But it is, and you are obviously wrong. Live with it.
For better understanding, I can highly recommend the annotated version:
<https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/A._Einstein:_Kommentare_und_Erl%C3%A4uterungen:_Zur_Elektrodynamik_bewegter_K%C3%B6rper>
Note that it does not spare with correct criticism on the sometimes
unnecessarily complicated way in which Einstein approached things.
For example, in hindsight, this thought experiment with the clocks
is deemed “unnecessary”.
Unfortunately, this version is currently only available in German, but
automated translation might help. (Learning German, and reading Einstein in
the German original, certainly helps to understand Einstein’s work better.)
See also:
Official 1913 reprint of the original paper, annotated 1989:
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/311>
Official English translation (by Dr. Anna Beck) of 1989 of the paper,
annotated the same year:
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>
Tutorial Web site, in German and English (here: English):
<http://www.einstein-online.info/home-eo@set_language=en.html>
Highly recommended online course, for free without a certificate:
<https://www.coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 02:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MT95D.2408328$zX7.2180044@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #465242 |
On 22/07/2018 20:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: >> On 22/07/2018 09:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Keith Stein wrote: >>>> And do you see how from these incorrect equations […] >>> >>> They are not incorrect. >> >> > (t_B - t_ A)= r_AB / (c-v) and (t_A' - t_B)= r_AB / (c+v) >> >> They most certainly are incorrect, >> because as i told you before: >> >> ".............. "v" is an independent variable which appears >> only in the RHS of the equations, so that if the equations are >> correct at v=0 they cannot possibly be correct at any other value." > > What you said is nonsense. What i said is true > “v” is the symbol for the relative inertial > speed of one frame of reference to the other – Yes v is the velocity of the observer, and the observer can arbitrarily change value of "v" simply by moving to the left or right, without effecting any of the other parameters in Einstein's incorrect equations given above. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 03:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <28ab9e29-9356-8353-135f-6f9f57cdcf9b@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #465266 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 22/07/2018 20:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 22/07/2018 09:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> And do you see how from these incorrect equations […] >>>> >>>> They are not incorrect. >>> >>> > (t_B - t_ A)= r_AB / (c-v) and (t_A' - t_B)= r_AB / (c+v) >>> >>> They most certainly are incorrect, >>> >>> because as i told you before: >>> >>> ".............. "v" is an independent variable which appears >>> only in the RHS of the equations, so that if the equations are >>> correct at v=0 they cannot possibly be correct at any other value." >> >> What you said is nonsense. > > What i said is true No, it is not. I have just told you why in the part that you conveniently snipped, which followed the following quotation. >> “v” is the symbol for the relative inertial >> speed of one frame of reference to the other – > > Yes v is the velocity of the observer, No, it is the _speed_ (the *magnitude* of velocity) of the _object_ of observation (_not_ of the observer, the subject). In general, it is, AISB, the speed of a frame of reference (“moving frame”) relative to a chosen frame of reference that is considered not moving in which the observer considers themselves at rest (rest frame). The “moving” object then is at rest in the moving frame. > [ex falso quodlibet] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 06:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35f1ee98-1ad3-4a02-b151-07c6f3d9e321@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465266 |
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 9:07:58 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 22/07/2018 20:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 22/07/2018 09:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>> Keith Stein wrote: > >>>> And do you see how from these incorrect equations […] > >>> > >>> They are not incorrect. > >> > >> > (t_B - t_ A)= r_AB / (c-v) and (t_A' - t_B)= r_AB / (c+v) > >> > >> They most certainly are incorrect, > > >> because as i told you before: > >> > >> ".............. "v" is an independent variable which appears > >> only in the RHS of the equations, so that if the equations are > >> correct at v=0 they cannot possibly be correct at any other value." > > > > What you said is nonsense. > > What i said is true > > > “v” is the symbol for the relative inertial > > speed of one frame of reference to the other – There is no c+v and c-v in the train. “v” has no effect on the time the light fronts from the ends of the train to reach M’. Why? Because the speed light is isotropic in the train. The correct math is the LT as follows: Delta(t’)=Gamma((Delta(t)-vx/c^2)) When M and M’ are coincide with each other x=0 and the above equation is reduced to: Delta(t’)=Gamma(Delta(t) This equation is valid for use in both directions. > > Yes v is the velocity of the observer, and the observer can arbitrarily > change value of "v" simply by moving to the left or right, without > effecting any of the other parameters in Einstein's incorrect equations > given above. > > keith stein Ken, I agree 100%. Einstein’s equation is wrong because he assumed closing speeds in the train.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj4nql$8ud$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465299 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >There is no c+v and c-v in the train. No, Stupid Ken, those are the closing speeds seen by M. The closing speeds of the light (c) and M' (v). But you don't understand closing speeds, so you won't understand this. Closing speeds are not a measured speed or the actual speed of anything. > "v" has no effect on the time the light fronts from the ends of the >train to reach M'. Why? Because the speed light is isotropic in the train. >The correct math is the LT as follows: >Delta(t')=Gamma((Delta(t)-vx/c^2)) No, the correct math is t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2). >Ken, I agree 100%. Einstein's equation is wrong because he assumed >closing speeds in the train. Ken, you don't even understand closing speeds! Why do you pretend that you do?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 16:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pj4q8r$1u2j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465301 |
Op 23-jul-2018 om 16:13 schreef Michael Moroney: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> There is no c+v and c-v in the train. > > No, Stupid Ken, those are the closing speeds seen by M. The closing speeds > of the light (c) and M' (v). But you don't understand closing speeds, so > you won't understand this. Closing speeds are not a measured speed or > the actual speed of anything. > >> "v" has no effect on the time the light fronts from the ends of the >> train to reach M'. Why? Because the speed light is isotropic in the train. > > >> The correct math is the LT as follows: >> Delta(t')=Gamma((Delta(t)-vx/c^2)) > > No, the correct math is t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2). > > >> Ken, I agree 100%. Einstein's equation is wrong because he assumed >> closing speeds in the train. > > Ken, you don't even understand closing speeds! Why do you pretend that > you do? > Ask Ken what "Delta" means. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 08:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hhf5D.1690330$9t.1635290@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #465242 |
On 22/07/2018 20:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: >> In fact a signal takes exactly the same time to reach its destination >> no matter who is looking at it > > No, the distance between the source and the destination has increased > compared to the stationary case, No, the distance between the source and the destination remains constant = r_AB at all times. However the distance the light travels in going from A to B, depends on the frame of reference of the observer, and can be greater or less than r_AB, depending on the direction of motion of the observer. The time the light takes to get from A to B, as measured by clocks at A and B, is independent of the frame of reference of the observer ie v > and the signal is not getting faster just > because something moves away from it. Not because something moves away from it it won't, but if the entire environment including the medium between the two clocks moves in the direction of the signal then it certainly will get faster, because the distance the signal travels in the observers frame of reference is longer, and as i have said many times the TIME REMAINS UNCHANGED by the motion of the observer. > So it takes the signal more time to > reach its destination than in the stationary case. Certainly not. > Not entirely equivalent, but think of a ball (light) that you are rolling > (shining) towards me. Instead of staying where I am, I am running away from > you and the ball (light). But I cannot outrun the ball (light [because I > cannot travel at the speed of light]): eventually the ball (light) will > catch up with me (as light is hundreds of thousand times faster than me). > It has to travel the extra distance that I moved away while it was catching > up with me, and for that it requires more time than if I had stayed where > I was. Your analogy is totally wrong. A good analogy would be to put is both on a train. You will then find that the speed relative to a stationary observer on the platform, of balls, or light, or balls of light, does indeed depend on the speed of the train. > > Stationary case > ================ > > time: 0 > -------- > > ball > :o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 1 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 2 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 3 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 4 > -------- > > ball > : o: > Keith Thomas > > Moving case > ============ > > time: 0 > -------- > > ball > :o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 1 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 2 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 3 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 4 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 5 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 6 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 7 > -------- > > ball > : o : > Keith Thomas > > time: 8 > -------- > > ball > : o: > Keith Thomas Come back Thomas. You and me are on the same train eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 11:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <01555515-ede7-7a71-6f68-574506adfbde@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #465286 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 22/07/2018 20:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >>> In fact a signal takes exactly the same time to reach its >>> destination no matter who is looking at it >> >> No, the distance between the source and the destination has increased >> compared to the stationary case, > > No, the distance between the source and the destination remains constant > = r_AB at all times. No, it does not. The source of the signal is where A *was*. >> and the signal is not getting faster just because something moves away >> from it. > > Not because something moves away from it it won't, but if the entire > environment including the medium between the two clocks moves in the > direction of the signal then it certainly will get faster, Not an electromagnetic signal. > because the distance the signal travels in the observers frame of > reference is longer, Non sequitur. > and as i have said many times the TIME REMAINS UNCHANGED by the motion of > the observer. Not from the frame relative to which the frame, whose time we are talking about, is moving. >> So it takes the signal more time to reach its destination than in the >> stationary case. > > Certainly not. Most definitely, as I just demonstrated. >> Not entirely equivalent, but think of a ball (light) that you are >> rolling (shining) towards me. Instead of staying where I am, I am >> running away from you and the ball (light). But I cannot outrun the >> ball (light [because I cannot travel at the speed of light]): >> eventually the ball (light) will catch up with me (as light is hundreds >> of thousand times faster than me). It has to travel the extra distance >> that I moved away while it was catching up with me, and for that it >> requires more time than if I had stayed where I was. > > Your analogy is totally wrong. No, it is not. > A good analogy would be to put is both on a train. You will then find > that the speed relative to a stationary observer on the platform, of > balls, or light, or balls of light, does indeed depend on the speed of > the train. I did say that my example is not entirely equivalent. > eh! Get well soon. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 08:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultane, the ball reaches me,> in about 4 units of time, while it reaches me in about 8 units of time if I,> run away at 1 unit of length per unit time, while the ball is traveling at 2,> units of length per unit time (twice as fast as me). (All as measured by you.),> ,> And if I run towards the ball, it reaches me earlier than if I stay put.,> (Drawing the corresponding diagram is left as an exercise to the reader.),> ,>>> While traveling, the signal also has to catch up with the destination in the,>>> first case,,>>,>> Indeed it does, which is why the light path is r_AB + v*(t_B - t_A) and,>> not just r_AB as represented in Einstein equations above.ity (RoS) |
| Message-ID | <FOf5D.709539$EJ.236940@fx02.am4> |
| In reply to | #465242 |
On 22/07/2018 20:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 22/07/2018 09:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Keith Stein wrote:
>
>>> While traveling, the signal also has to catch up with the destination in the
>>> first case,
>>
>> Indeed it does, which is why the light path is r_AB + v*(t_B - t_A) and
>> not just r_AB as represented in Einstein equations above.
>
> The path of light in the direction of motion (from A to B) *is* *indeed*
>
> s_AB = r_AB + v (t_B − t_A)
>
> [Einstein just does not state that explicitly in his paper. A reason
> could be that his paper was supposed to be read by *physicists* who
> do not need to be concerned with such trivialities].
But if Einstein had concerned himself with such "trivialities" he then
would have obtained:
Speed of light = light path / time
= (r_AB + v (t_B − t_A)) / (t_B - t_A)
= r_AB /(t_B - t_A) + v
= c + v
And then he would have been correct eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 12:34 +0200 |
| Subject | Relativity of simultaneity (RoS) (was: The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS)) |
| Message-ID | <1fbd0eed-4a34-4c63-1d81-76ea9e22da7a@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #465287 |
Keith Stein wrote:
> On 22/07/2018 20:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2018 09:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> While traveling, the signal also has to catch up with the destination in the
>>>> first case,
>>>
>>> Indeed it does, which is why the light path is r_AB + v*(t_B - t_A) and
>>> not just r_AB as represented in Einstein equations above.
>>
>> The path of light in the direction of motion (from A to B) *is* *indeed*
>>
>> s_AB = r_AB + v (t_B − t_A)
>>
>> [Einstein just does not state that explicitly in his paper. A reason
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> could be that his paper was supposed to be read by *physicists* who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> do not need to be concerned with such trivialities].
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> But if Einstein had concerned himself with such "trivialities"
Can’t you read? He did concern himself with that. He just did not write it
down explicitly.
And it *is* a triviality for a physicist to solve an equation for a term.
It is even a triviality for a high school student. Only for you it appears
to be difficult. Guess why.
> he then would have obtained:
>
> Speed of light = light path / time
> = (r_AB + v (t_B − t_A)) / (t_B - t_A)
>
> = r_AB /(t_B - t_A) + v
Until here there is no fundamental difference to what I wrote. In fact, if
now you consistently use symbols instead of words, and solve for t_B − t_A,
you get *exactly* what Einstein wrote:
c = r_AB /(t_B − t_A) + v
c − v = r_AB /(t_B − t_A)
t_B − t_A = r_AB /(c − v). ∎
> = c + v
As your left-hand side is still “Speed of light”, this is equivalent to
c = c + v
which does not make any sense. (Even you should be able to see that.)
Different from you, Einstein knew from experiments of others that the speed
of light is constant in the rest frame, and he knew the Galilean principle
of relativity.
Courtesy of me, you can see how what Einstein wrote FOLLOWS from your
equation at the top if one applies the knowledge of the constancy of the
speed of light.
Unsurprisingly, you did not quote that because you have either not read it
or not understood it – even though it is only simple algebra that one learns
in high school (or equivalent).
> And then he would have been correct
He was/is correct. For example, in order to transmit a proper time signal,
a correction value, which is calculated using special relativity, is
transmitted from the GPS ground station regularly to at least one GPS
satellite (from which the information can propagate to the remaining
satellites of the GPS constellation).
The reason for that is that such a GPS satellite is moving relative to the
surface of Earth.
If the correction value would not be sent, the satellite would *naturally*,
and *despite an atomic clock*, transmit a time signal to GPS receivers that
on average is *wrong* (*behind* surface atomic clocks) by up to
∆t' = ∆t∕γ
= ∆t √(1 − v²∕c²)
∆t := 1 d = 86 400 s
v = v_orbit_GPS_max + v_rotation_Earth_avg
≈ 3.874 km∕s + 456.1 m∕s
∆t' ≈ (86 400 s) √(1 − (4.3301 km∕s)²∕(299 792.458 km∕s)²)
≈ 86399.999985573 s
ε = ∆t − ∆t' ≈ 14.43 µs
*per day* for an observer at rest on the surface of Earth already (the GPS
time signal is also used by airplanes).
> eh!
Get well soon.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web