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 9 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 23 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjfk8i$63i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465948 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. >>>>>>>>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) >>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, >>>>>>>>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical >>>>>>>>>> baggage of aether eh! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stop making up stuff. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How is what I said: making up stiff??? >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. >>>>>> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. >>>>> >>>>> That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. >>>> >>>> No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is “a medium is the substance >>>> that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another.” It is >>>> not something that occupies all space. The water in a pond is the medium >>>> for sound waves in the pond, but the water does not occupy all space. The >>>> steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves in a Slinky, but does >>>> not occupy all space. >>> >>> Idiot....The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one >>> location to another. The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies >>> all of space. The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law >>> and that’s why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. >> >> Nobody gives a damn about the E-matrix. The thing you said that is WRONG is >> that it is the PHYSICS definition of medium is that it extends throughout >> all space. The PHYSICS definition of medium is not that, and I provided to >> you the PHYSICS definition that you couldn’t be bothered to look up. > > Hey moron .....the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity > occupy all of space. It acts as a carrier of light waves. This is an > expanded definition for the word “medium”. It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, not anyone else’s. > However, it is allowed because it is used to explain a new physics > theory. I don’t care that you don’t like it....too fucking bad. So you think it’s ok to LIE that the definition you state is the physics definition of medium, and if I’m not ok with you LYING about that, it’s too fucking bad. Ever wonder why you have the crappy reputation you do? > >> >> If you would constantly say that KEN SETO’S definition of a medium is this >> or that, then nobody would care. But when you PRETEND to be knowledgeable >> about what PHYSICISTS say (when you don’t), then you get called out. > > I don’t care if you or anybody don’t like it.....too fucking bad. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people >>>> like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. >>>> >>>> When are you going to stop bullshitting? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. >>>>>>>> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The >>>>>>>>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties >>>>>>>>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting >>>>>>>>> all the forces of nature. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other >>>>>>>>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, >>>>>>>>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name >>>>>>>>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be >>>>>>>>>> discovered substance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it >>>>>>>>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, >>>>>>>>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely >>>>>>>>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long >>>>>>>>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which >>>>>>>>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> light is NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a >>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum, too. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. >>>>>>>>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do >>>>>>>>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over >>>>>>>>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES >>>>>>>>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on >>>>>>>>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that >>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel >>>>>>>>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, >>>>>>>>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjflue$n2r$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465958 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> Nobody gives a damn about the E-matrix. The thing you said that is WRONG is >>> that it is the PHYSICS definition of medium is that it extends throughout >>> all space. The PHYSICS definition of medium is not that, and I provided to >>> you the PHYSICS definition that you couldn’t be bothered to look up. >> >> Hey moron .....the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity >> occupy all of space. It acts as a carrier of light waves. This is an >> expanded definition for the word “medium”. >It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >not anyone else’s. >> However, it is allowed because it is used to explain a new physics >> theory. I don’t care that you don’t like it....too fucking bad. >So you think it’s ok to LIE that the definition you state is the physics >definition of medium, and if I’m not ok with you LYING about that, it’s too >fucking bad. >Ever wonder why you have the crappy reputation you do? That's right, Ken. If you're lying about the physics definition of a medium, we have to wonder what ELSE are you lying about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 20:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pjfnd8$b7k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465962 |
Op 27-jul-2018 om 19:49 schreef Michael Moroney: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> Nobody gives a damn about the E-matrix. The thing you said that is WRONG is >>>> that it is the PHYSICS definition of medium is that it extends throughout >>>> all space. The PHYSICS definition of medium is not that, and I provided to >>>> you the PHYSICS definition that you couldn’t be bothered to look up. >>> >>> Hey moron .....the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity >>> occupy all of space. It acts as a carrier of light waves. This is an >>> expanded definition for the word “medium”. > >> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >> not anyone else’s. > >>> However, it is allowed because it is used to explain a new physics >>> theory. I don’t care that you don’t like it....too fucking bad. > >> So you think it’s ok to LIE that the definition you state is the physics >> definition of medium, and if I’m not ok with you LYING about that, it’s too >> fucking bad. > >> Ever wonder why you have the crappy reputation you do? > > That's right, Ken. If you're lying about the physics definition of a > medium, we have to wonder what ELSE are you lying about? I.m.o. he's not even lying. I repeat, it take a minimal amount of intelligence to do that. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49f79864-af3b-41e4-9bad-34fdd7fab046@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465958 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. > >>>>>>>>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) > >>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, > >>>>>>>>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical > >>>>>>>>>> baggage of aether eh! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Stop making up stuff. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How is what I said: making up stiff??? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. > >>>>>> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. > >>>>> > >>>>> That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. > >>>> > >>>> No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is “a medium is the substance > >>>> that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another.” It is > >>>> not something that occupies all space. The water in a pond is the medium > >>>> for sound waves in the pond, but the water does not occupy all space. The > >>>> steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves in a Slinky, but does > >>>> not occupy all space. > >>> > >>> Idiot....The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one > >>> location to another. The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies > >>> all of space. The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law > >>> and that’s why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. > >> > >> Nobody gives a damn about the E-matrix. The thing you said that is WRONG is > >> that it is the PHYSICS definition of medium is that it extends throughout > >> all space. The PHYSICS definition of medium is not that, and I provided to > >> you the PHYSICS definition that you couldn’t be bothered to look up. > > > > Hey moron .....the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity > > occupy all of space. It acts as a carrier of light waves. This is an > > expanded definition for the word “medium”. > > It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it > is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, > not anyone else’s. Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a lie when I explain what the expansion mean? > > > However, it is allowed because it is used to explain a new physics > > theory. I don’t care that you don’t like it....too fucking bad. > > So you think it’s ok to LIE that the definition you state is the physics > definition of medium, and if I’m not ok with you LYING about that, it’s too > fucking bad. > > Ever wonder why you have the crappy reputation you do? Moron you don’t even know what the word lie mean. > > > > >> > >> If you would constantly say that KEN SETO’S definition of a medium is this > >> or that, then nobody would care. But when you PRETEND to be knowledgeable > >> about what PHYSICISTS say (when you don’t), then you get called out. > > > > I don’t care if you or anybody don’t like it.....too fucking bad. > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people > >>>> like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. > >>>> > >>>> When are you going to stop bullshitting? > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. > >>>>>>>> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The > >>>>>>>>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties > >>>>>>>>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting > >>>>>>>>> all the forces of nature. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other > >>>>>>>>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, > >>>>>>>>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name > >>>>>>>>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be > >>>>>>>>>> discovered substance. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, > >>>>>>>>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely > >>>>>>>>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which > >>>>>>>>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> light is NOT > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum, too. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference > >>>>>>>>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over > >>>>>>>>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES > >>>>>>>>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on > >>>>>>>>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that > >>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel > >>>>>>>>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, > >>>>>>>>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5742e00e-d706-4d9d-9fb0-e631050c1c25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466005 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it > > is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, > > not anyone else’s. > > Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a lie when I explain what the expansion mean? You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", and is CERTAINLY not an "expanded definition." Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 22:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjg6v5$139j$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466008 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >>> not anyone else’s. >> >> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a >> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? > > You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all > of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", > and is CERTAINLY not an "expanded definition." > > Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are > doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. > Furthermore, he said, and I quote: “That is the meaning of a medium in physics.” Which is an outright lie. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 06:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c394efe4-7c32-447e-9cc9-c50e82deb723@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466008 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it > > > is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, > > > not anyone else’s. > > > > Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a lie when I explain what the expansion mean? > > You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all > of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", > and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. > > Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are > doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether that transmits light. I gave a specific name for this aether: The E-Matrix. What is your problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjht6k$1f45$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466045 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >>>> not anyone else’s. >>> >>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a >>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? >> >> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all >> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", >> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." > > Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and > I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. > >> >> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are >> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. > > The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether that transmits light. How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do with what it means in physics. If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are living in a dream world. > I gave a specific name for this aether: The E-Matrix. What is your problem? > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <934ffd43-895f-4604-a159-f988fdf8b496@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466049 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it > >>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, > >>>> not anyone else’s. > >>> > >>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a > >>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? > >> > >> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all > >> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", > >> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." > > > > Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and > > I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. > > > >> > >> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are > >> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. > > > > The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether that transmits light. > > How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do > with what it means in physics. Live with it....physicists are not infallible. The way to advance in physics is to accept new idea and new definitions. > > If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are > living in a dream world. I don’t care what is a discussion among physicists. I am presenting a new theory of physics called Model mechanics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pji9j1$4gq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466063 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >>>>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >>>>>> not anyone else’s. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a >>>>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? >>>> >>>> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all >>>> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", >>>> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." >>> >>> Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and >>> I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. >>> >>>> >>>> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are >>>> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. >>> >>> The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether that transmits light. >> >> How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do >> with what it means in physics. > > Live with it....physicists are not infallible. The way to advance in > physics is to accept new idea and new definitions. No, Ken, it’s not. That’s your fantasies talking. Science doesn’t work the way you wish it did. > >> >> If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are >> living in a dream world. > > I don’t care what is a discussion among physicists. I am presenting a new > theory of physics called Model mechanics. Not a physics theory for the reasons given to you many times. It takes more than you calling it a physics theory to make it a physics theory. What you have is an expensive charade meant to impress your relatives. > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5ed1bde-e37c-4beb-9e16-225860def9af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466070 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it > >>>>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, > >>>>>> not anyone else’s. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a > >>>>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? > >>>> > >>>> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all > >>>> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", > >>>> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." > >>> > >>> Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and > >>> I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are > >>>> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. > >>> > >>> The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether that transmits light. > >> > >> How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do > >> with what it means in physics. > > > > Live with it....physicists are not infallible. The way to advance in > > physics is to accept new idea and new definitions. > > No, Ken, it’s not. That’s your fantasies talking. Science doesn’t work the > way you wish it did. > > > > >> > >> If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are > >> living in a dream world. > > > > I don’t care what is a discussion among physicists. I am presenting a new > > theory of physics called Model mechanics. > > Not a physics theory for the reasons given to you many times. It takes more > than you calling it a physics theory to make it a physics theory. Your uninformed opinion doesn’t count. You don’t even understand the meaning of the word “THEORY”. > > What you have is an expensive charade meant to impress your relatives. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 22:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjirl7$10oc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466085 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >>>>>>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >>>>>>>> not anyone else’s. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a >>>>>>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? >>>>>> >>>>>> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all >>>>>> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", >>>>>> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." >>>>> >>>>> Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and >>>>> I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are >>>>>> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. >>>>> >>>>> The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether >>>>> that transmits light. >>>> >>>> How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do >>>> with what it means in physics. >>> >>> Live with it....physicists are not infallible. The way to advance in >>> physics is to accept new idea and new definitions. >> >> No, Ken, it’s not. That’s your fantasies talking. Science doesn’t work the >> way you wish it did. >> >>> >>>> >>>> If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are >>>> living in a dream world. >>> >>> I don’t care what is a discussion among physicists. I am presenting a new >>> theory of physics called Model mechanics. >> >> Not a physics theory for the reasons given to you many times. It takes more >> than you calling it a physics theory to make it a physics theory. > > Your uninformed opinion doesn’t count. You don’t even understand the > meaning of the word “THEORY”. Oh yes I do because I’ve read physics books and you have not. You have made up what “theory” means. > >> >> What you have is an expensive charade meant to impress your relatives. >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 08:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4bc8484-e829-4368-8ff1-8d1e74ea5db6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466089 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:45:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it > >>>>>>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, > >>>>>>>> not anyone else’s. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a > >>>>>>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all > >>>>>> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", > >>>>>> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." > >>>>> > >>>>> Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and > >>>>> I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are > >>>>>> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. > >>>>> > >>>>> The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether > >>>>> that transmits light. > >>>> > >>>> How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do > >>>> with what it means in physics. > >>> > >>> Live with it....physicists are not infallible. The way to advance in > >>> physics is to accept new idea and new definitions. > >> > >> No, Ken, it’s not. That’s your fantasies talking. Science doesn’t work the > >> way you wish it did. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are > >>>> living in a dream world. > >>> > >>> I don’t care what is a discussion among physicists. I am presenting a new > >>> theory of physics called Model mechanics. > >> > >> Not a physics theory for the reasons given to you many times. It takes more > >> than you calling it a physics theory to make it a physics theory. > > > > Your uninformed opinion doesn’t count. You don’t even understand the > > meaning of the word “THEORY”. > > Oh yes I do because I’ve read physics books and you have not. You have made > up what “theory” means. No you don’t......no matter how many books that present the bogus theory of SR you read. IRT is the true theory of relativity. A paper on IRT in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjltnq$1jv0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466113 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:45:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >>>>>>>>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >>>>>>>>>> not anyone else’s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a >>>>>>>>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all >>>>>>>> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", >>>>>>>> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and >>>>>>> I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are >>>>>>>> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether >>>>>>> that transmits light. >>>>>> >>>>>> How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do >>>>>> with what it means in physics. >>>>> >>>>> Live with it....physicists are not infallible. The way to advance in >>>>> physics is to accept new idea and new definitions. >>>> >>>> No, Ken, it’s not. That’s your fantasies talking. Science doesn’t work the >>>> way you wish it did. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are >>>>>> living in a dream world. >>>>> >>>>> I don’t care what is a discussion among physicists. I am presenting a new >>>>> theory of physics called Model mechanics. >>>> >>>> Not a physics theory for the reasons given to you many times. It takes more >>>> than you calling it a physics theory to make it a physics theory. >>> >>> Your uninformed opinion doesn’t count. You don’t even understand the >>> meaning of the word “THEORY”. >> >> Oh yes I do because I’ve read physics books and you have not. You have made >> up what “theory” means. > > No you don’t......no matter how many books that present the bogus theory > of SR you read. IRT is the true theory of relativity. A paper on IRT in > the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > So you don’t care what physicists say a physical theory is. You say your theory defines what a physical theory ought to be, even though you are uneducated in physics. Hmmmmm..... Think anyone buys into your egomania? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <707d433a-c906-4190-b2d6-7a5aa397d958@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466172 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:38:55 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:45:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it > >>>>>>>>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, > >>>>>>>>>> not anyone else’s. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a > >>>>>>>>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all > >>>>>>>> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", > >>>>>>>> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and > >>>>>>> I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are > >>>>>>>> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether > >>>>>>> that transmits light. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do > >>>>>> with what it means in physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Live with it....physicists are not infallible. The way to advance in > >>>>> physics is to accept new idea and new definitions. > >>>> > >>>> No, Ken, it’s not. That’s your fantasies talking. Science doesn’t work the > >>>> way you wish it did. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are > >>>>>> living in a dream world. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don’t care what is a discussion among physicists. I am presenting a new > >>>>> theory of physics called Model mechanics. > >>>> > >>>> Not a physics theory for the reasons given to you many times. It takes more > >>>> than you calling it a physics theory to make it a physics theory. > >>> > >>> Your uninformed opinion doesn’t count. You don’t even understand the > >>> meaning of the word “THEORY”. > >> > >> Oh yes I do because I’ve read physics books and you have not. You have made > >> up what “theory” means. > > > > No you don’t......no matter how many books that present the bogus theory > > of SR you read. IRT is the true theory of relativity. A paper on IRT in > > the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > > So you don’t care what physicists say a physical theory is. > You say your theory defines what a physical theory ought to be, even though > you are uneducated in physics. Moron, it is you who is uneducated in real physics. > > Hmmmmm..... > > Think anyone buys into your egomania? > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 01:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjr3f4$46g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466200 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:38:55 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 6:45:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >>>>>>>>>>>> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >>>>>>>>>>>> not anyone else’s. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a >>>>>>>>>>> lie when I explain what the expansion mean? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You wrote, "A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all >>>>>>>>>> of space." That is not the generally accepted use of the word "medium", >>>>>>>>>> and is CERTAINLY not an “expanded definition." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Too bad....I called this medium occupying all of space: the E-matrix, and >>>>>>>>> I gave detail description of the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you explained *your* use of what the word means, and all we are >>>>>>>>>> doing here is pointing out that you are misusing standard vocabulary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The word medium has been used in this NG as some form of an aether >>>>>>>>> that transmits light. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How it is used in this newsgroups by cranks and amateurs has nothing to do >>>>>>>> with what it means in physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Live with it....physicists are not infallible. The way to advance in >>>>>>> physics is to accept new idea and new definitions. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Ken, it’s not. That’s your fantasies talking. Science doesn’t work the >>>>>> way you wish it did. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you thought this newsgroup was a discussion among physicists, you are >>>>>>>> living in a dream world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don’t care what is a discussion among physicists. I am presenting a new >>>>>>> theory of physics called Model mechanics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a physics theory for the reasons given to you many times. It takes more >>>>>> than you calling it a physics theory to make it a physics theory. >>>>> >>>>> Your uninformed opinion doesn’t count. You don’t even understand the >>>>> meaning of the word “THEORY”. >>>> >>>> Oh yes I do because I’ve read physics books and you have not. You have made >>>> up what “theory” means. >>> >>> No you don’t......no matter how many books that present the bogus theory >>> of SR you read. IRT is the true theory of relativity. A paper on IRT in >>> the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>> >> >> So you don’t care what physicists say a physical theory is. >> You say your theory defines what a physical theory ought to be, even though >> you are uneducated in physics. > > Moron, it is you who is uneducated in real physics. So you don’t think what physicists do is “real physics”? You think that you, uneducated in physics, are the only maker of “real physics”? Are you insane? So let’s recap. You say physicists don’t do real physics. You say only you do real physics. You say you don’t care what physicists call a physical theory. You say only you have the right idea of a physical theory. You say physicists don’t know what “theory” means. You say only you have something that’s a real theory. Have we got that all laid out? > >> >> Hmmmmm..... >> >> Think anyone buys into your egomania? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 22:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjg6v4$139j$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466005 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. >>>>>>>>>>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) >>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, >>>>>>>>>>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical >>>>>>>>>>>> baggage of aether eh! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Stop making up stuff. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How is what I said: making up stiff??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. >>>>>>>> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is “a medium is the substance >>>>>> that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another.” It is >>>>>> not something that occupies all space. The water in a pond is the medium >>>>>> for sound waves in the pond, but the water does not occupy all space. The >>>>>> steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves in a Slinky, but does >>>>>> not occupy all space. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one >>>>> location to another. The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies >>>>> all of space. The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law >>>>> and that’s why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. >>>> >>>> Nobody gives a damn about the E-matrix. The thing you said that is WRONG is >>>> that it is the PHYSICS definition of medium is that it extends throughout >>>> all space. The PHYSICS definition of medium is not that, and I provided to >>>> you the PHYSICS definition that you couldn’t be bothered to look up. >>> >>> Hey moron .....the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity >>> occupy all of space. It acts as a carrier of light waves. This is an >>> expanded definition for the word “medium”. >> >> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it >> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, >> not anyone else’s. > > Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a lie > when I explain what the expansion mean? Your lie was that you said this is the PHYSICS definition. That’s a lie. It’s YOUR definition, not the physics definition. Your lie is quoted right above. You don’t remember what you write? > >> >>> However, it is allowed because it is used to explain a new physics >>> theory. I don’t care that you don’t like it....too fucking bad. >> >> So you think it’s ok to LIE that the definition you state is the physics >> definition of medium, and if I’m not ok with you LYING about that, it’s too >> fucking bad. >> >> Ever wonder why you have the crappy reputation you do? > > Moron you don’t even know what the word lie mean. >> >>> >>>> >>>> If you would constantly say that KEN SETO’S definition of a medium is this >>>> or that, then nobody would care. But when you PRETEND to be knowledgeable >>>> about what PHYSICISTS say (when you don’t), then you get called out. >>> >>> I don’t care if you or anybody don’t like it.....too fucking bad. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people >>>>>> like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> When are you going to stop bullshitting? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. >>>>>>>>>> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The >>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties >>>>>>>>>>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting >>>>>>>>>>> all the forces of nature. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other >>>>>>>>>>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, >>>>>>>>>>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name >>>>>>>>>>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be >>>>>>>>>>>> discovered substance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light is NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum, too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES >>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85ecb381-6c06-4dc1-8cc1-ab77eb212166@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466011 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:39:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. > >>>>>>>>>>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) > >>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, > >>>>>>>>>>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical > >>>>>>>>>>>> baggage of aether eh! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Stop making up stuff. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How is what I said: making up stiff??? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. > >>>>>>>> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is “a medium is the substance > >>>>>> that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another.” It is > >>>>>> not something that occupies all space. The water in a pond is the medium > >>>>>> for sound waves in the pond, but the water does not occupy all space. The > >>>>>> steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves in a Slinky, but does > >>>>>> not occupy all space. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot....The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one > >>>>> location to another. The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies > >>>>> all of space. The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law > >>>>> and that’s why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. > >>>> > >>>> Nobody gives a damn about the E-matrix. The thing you said that is WRONG is > >>>> that it is the PHYSICS definition of medium is that it extends throughout > >>>> all space. The PHYSICS definition of medium is not that, and I provided to > >>>> you the PHYSICS definition that you couldn’t be bothered to look up. > >>> > >>> Hey moron .....the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity > >>> occupy all of space. It acts as a carrier of light waves. This is an > >>> expanded definition for the word “medium”. > >> > >> It’s a DIFFERENT definition for the word medium. And so when you claimed it > >> is the PHYSICS definition of medium, you LIED. It is KEN SETO’S definition, > >> not anyone else’s. > > > > Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a lie > > when I explain what the expansion mean? > > Your lie was that you said this is the PHYSICS definition. That’s a lie. > It’s YOUR definition, not the physics definition. Idiot I didn’t say that. I said that. I said:.the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity occupy all of space. > > Your lie is quoted right above. You don’t remember what you write? > > > > >> > >>> However, it is allowed because it is used to explain a new physics > >>> theory. I don’t care that you don’t like it....too fucking bad. > >> > >> So you think it’s ok to LIE that the definition you state is the physics > >> definition of medium, and if I’m not ok with you LYING about that, it’s too > >> fucking bad. > >> > >> Ever wonder why you have the crappy reputation you do? > > > > Moron you don’t even know what the word lie mean. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> If you would constantly say that KEN SETO’S definition of a medium is this > >>>> or that, then nobody would care. But when you PRETEND to be knowledgeable > >>>> about what PHYSICISTS say (when you don’t), then you get called out. > >>> > >>> I don’t care if you or anybody don’t like it.....too fucking bad. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people > >>>>>> like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When are you going to stop bullshitting? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. > >>>>>>>>>> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The > >>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties > >>>>>>>>>>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting > >>>>>>>>>>> all the forces of nature. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other > >>>>>>>>>>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, > >>>>>>>>>>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name > >>>>>>>>>>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be > >>>>>>>>>>>> discovered substance. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light is NOT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum, too. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjga1q$p9a$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #466015 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:39:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> > Idiot, it is an expanded definition of the word medium. How is that a lie >> > when I explain what the expansion mean? >> Your lie was that you said this is the PHYSICS definition. That's a lie. >> It's YOUR definition, not the physics definition. >Idiot I didn't say that. I said that. I said:.the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity >occupy all of space. >> Your lie is quoted right above. You don't remember what you write? Apparently not! >> Furthermore, he said, and I quote: "That is the meaning of a medium in >> physics." Which is an outright lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj7nmc$oh5$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465408 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: >> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do >> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over >> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? And the estimated distance between encounters that Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog came with - about 200 AUs between encounters! >What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES >travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on >the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that >characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. Except light is not strictly waves. It has particle characteristics and wave characteristics. One of the particle-like characteristics is that it does not need a medium, just like the moon doesn't need a medium to orbit earth. > As to how electromagnetic waves travel >between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, >but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts >Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! No, observation beats theory, every time. At a macroscopic scale, intergalactic light spends most of its time in a perfect vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web