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 4 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 23 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 06:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2773239d-9006-441a-996c-0aac1ce07eee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465418 |
On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 14:52:21 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Actually not a good rationale. The experimentally validated law of > composition of velocities is quite clear in accounting for two distinct > behaviors. Every fanatic idiot cn scream "EXPERIMENTALLY VALIDATED!!!!" and many of them do. It's quite easy, poor fanatic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 17:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj7ol3$oh5$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465415 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 24/07/2018 05:46, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 23/07/2018 15:29, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >>> I rather think that Maxwell appreciated that a >>> velocity relative to nothing is meaningless, >> >> The speed of light is never relative to nothing. It is always relative >> to the observer, and is always c. >Could a dog have the same speed relative to all observers? We're not talking about dogs, which move very slowly compared to c. We're talking about light itself. Plug "c" into the SR speed combination formula, and yes, you get "c" for everyone! >Of course not, and no more could light, and for the same reason eh! Wrong. >>>> Low pressure hydrogen is irrelevant, as the difference between the speed >>>> of light in the interstellar medium and theoretical exact c is almost >>>> unmeasureable. >> >>> It's not that the magnitude of the speed is significantly different from >>> c,the point of the hydrogen is that it determines the frame of reference >>> to which that speed applies. >> >> Speed of light needs no reference frame. It just is the same everywhere. >Well the speed of sound in air at NTP is the same everywhere, >and the same is true of the speed light, of course. Light is not sound. >>>> (Fizeau experiment with n almost exactly 1) >>>> You were already told about that. >> >>> And as i told you before if you measure the speed of light in a tank of >>> water on a train,you will certainly find that relative to an observer on >>> station: >>> velocity of light = c_water + velocity of train And you were told that this was wrong. Fizeau knew this. Why are you more than 168 years behind the times???? >> We already know that is wrong, we've known that is wrong for well over 150 >> years as Fizeau discovered that. Heck, Maxwell himself may have known that >> was wrong (if he knew of Fizeau's work), Fizeau's work was done before >> Maxwell's work. >> >> The speed of light in a medium with refractive index n moving at v is >> c/n + v(1-1/n^2). >And as i told you before if you measure the speed of light in a tank of >water on a train,you will certainly find that relative to an observer on >station: > velocity of light = c_water + velocity of train >It really is very simple to show this. The time it takes light to >travel through 1 meter of water does not vary with the speed of the train. >Whereas the path length (if the train is moving away from the observer >in the same direction as the light being measured) increases by v*Dt. >This trumps Fizeau's flowing water in pipes, and anyone who >had half the experience i have with fluids flowing in pipes >would know this for sure. Very, very wrong! Theory NEVER trumps actual experiment! Actual experiment (including Fizeau 168 years ago!) (approximately) matches the formula I gave, not your very VERY outdated belief. Remember what Feynman wrote: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -Richard P. Feynman So your "beautiful" theory about water in trains is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7fb669e-7e59-479f-9f9d-d17aa83176cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465232 |
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 8:01:45 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 2:13:14 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 12:56:43 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 1:16:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 9:56:41 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > >> On 7/21/18 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > >>> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity > > > > >>> (RoS) > > > > >> > > > > >> No, it does NOT. YOU are confused. And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is > > > > >> REQUIRED by the PoR (the first postulate of SR) and the second postulate > > > > >> of SR. > > > > > > > > > > Clearly you are wrong. The PoR defines reciprocity and RoS rejects the > > > > > concept of reciprocity. Also the P2 rejects the idea of closing speeds > > > > > between light and any object and the RoS is based on the idea of closing speeds. > > > > > The reason why Einstein introduced the bogus concept of RoS is to explain > > > > > all the paradoxes derived from the P2. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the > > > > >>> laws of physics in the train moving wrt me. > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes. And in any other inertial frame as well > > > > >> > > > > >>> That means that if I found two events in my frame to be simultaneous, > > > > >>> the train observer must also find the two identical events in his > > > > >>> frame to be simultaneous. > > > > >> > > > > >> No. Simultaneity is not a law of physics. The fact that clocks must be > > > > >> set to the "correct" time shows quite clearly that simultaneity is a > > > > >> HUMAN construct (it depends on how humans set clocks; what they deem to > > > > >> the “correct"). > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t say that simultaneity is a law of physics. I said that Einstein > > > > > introduced it as a concept of physics. > > > > > > > > Simultaneity was a concept of physics centuries before Einstein was born. > > > > Good grief. > > > > > > Moron, but not the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS), RoS was invented by Einstein to save SR. > > > > You get everything wrong all the time. Good grief, man. RoS was a _consequence_ of > > certain assumptions designed to make the by-then known invariance properties of > > Maxwell's equations _physical_. > > -- > > How is invariant speed of light as set forth in Maxwell’s equation requires the bogus concept of RoS? Maxwell's equations did not require invariant speed of light: Maxwell's theory was aether-based and the speed 1/sqrt(mu_0*epsilon_0) was wrt to that medium. > Einstein invented the RoS based on his bogus assumption that the embankment observer sees the train observer M’ is moving with different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. No, the RoS is a consequence of his two postulates. Another consequence was his reinterpretation of Maxwell's equations in terms of coordinates that he showed could be treated as physically equivalent which implied no need for aether in those equations. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <262809df-de24-4894-a879-7bc498b5fa77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465356 |
On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 3:27:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 8:01:45 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 2:13:14 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 12:56:43 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 1:16:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 9:56:41 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > >> On 7/21/18 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > >>> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity > > > > > >>> (RoS) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No, it does NOT. YOU are confused. And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is > > > > > >> REQUIRED by the PoR (the first postulate of SR) and the second postulate > > > > > >> of SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly you are wrong. The PoR defines reciprocity and RoS rejects the > > > > > > concept of reciprocity. Also the P2 rejects the idea of closing speeds > > > > > > between light and any object and the RoS is based on the idea of closing speeds. > > > > > > The reason why Einstein introduced the bogus concept of RoS is to explain > > > > > > all the paradoxes derived from the P2. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the > > > > > >>> laws of physics in the train moving wrt me. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yes. And in any other inertial frame as well > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> That means that if I found two events in my frame to be simultaneous, > > > > > >>> the train observer must also find the two identical events in his > > > > > >>> frame to be simultaneous. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No. Simultaneity is not a law of physics. The fact that clocks must be > > > > > >> set to the "correct" time shows quite clearly that simultaneity is a > > > > > >> HUMAN construct (it depends on how humans set clocks; what they deem to > > > > > >> the “correct"). > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t say that simultaneity is a law of physics. I said that Einstein > > > > > > introduced it as a concept of physics. > > > > > > > > > > Simultaneity was a concept of physics centuries before Einstein was born. > > > > > Good grief. > > > > > > > > Moron, but not the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS), RoS was invented by Einstein to save SR. > > > > > > You get everything wrong all the time. Good grief, man. RoS was a _consequence_ of > > > certain assumptions designed to make the by-then known invariance properties of > > > Maxwell's equations _physical_. > > > -- > > > > How is invariant speed of light as set forth in Maxwell’s equation requires the bogus concept of RoS? > > Maxwell's equations did not require invariant speed of light: Maxwell's > theory was aether-based and the speed 1/sqrt(mu_0*epsilon_0) was wrt to > that medium. Right, because mu_0 and epsilon_0 are properties of the aether. So the questions remain: How does RoS a consequence of Maxwell’s equations? > > > Einstein invented the RoS based on his bogus assumption that the embankment observer sees the train observer M’ is moving with different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > > No, the RoS is a consequence of his two postulates. So show us how the dos is a consequence of his (Einstein’s) two postulates. >Another consequence > was his reinterpretation of Maxwell's equations in terms of coordinates > that he showed could be treated as physically equivalent which implied > no need for aether in those equations. > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f7cec67-d831-4c3e-98d3-f528d853ddf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465416 |
On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:34:31 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 3:27:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 8:01:45 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 2:13:14 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 12:56:43 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 1:16:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 9:56:41 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > >> On 7/21/18 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > >>> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity > > > > > > >>> (RoS) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> No, it does NOT. YOU are confused. And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is > > > > > > >> REQUIRED by the PoR (the first postulate of SR) and the second postulate > > > > > > >> of SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly you are wrong. The PoR defines reciprocity and RoS rejects the > > > > > > > concept of reciprocity. Also the P2 rejects the idea of closing speeds > > > > > > > between light and any object and the RoS is based on the idea of closing speeds. > > > > > > > The reason why Einstein introduced the bogus concept of RoS is to explain > > > > > > > all the paradoxes derived from the P2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the > > > > > > >>> laws of physics in the train moving wrt me. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes. And in any other inertial frame as well > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> That means that if I found two events in my frame to be simultaneous, > > > > > > >>> the train observer must also find the two identical events in his > > > > > > >>> frame to be simultaneous. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> No. Simultaneity is not a law of physics. The fact that clocks must be > > > > > > >> set to the "correct" time shows quite clearly that simultaneity is a > > > > > > >> HUMAN construct (it depends on how humans set clocks; what they deem to > > > > > > >> the “correct"). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t say that simultaneity is a law of physics. I said that Einstein > > > > > > > introduced it as a concept of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > Simultaneity was a concept of physics centuries before Einstein was born. > > > > > > Good grief. > > > > > > > > > > Moron, but not the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS), RoS was invented by Einstein to save SR. > > > > > > > > You get everything wrong all the time. Good grief, man. RoS was a _consequence_ of > > > > certain assumptions designed to make the by-then known invariance properties of > > > > Maxwell's equations _physical_. > > > > -- > > > > > > How is invariant speed of light as set forth in Maxwell’s equation requires the bogus concept of RoS? > > > > Maxwell's equations did not require invariant speed of light: Maxwell's > > theory was aether-based and the speed 1/sqrt(mu_0*epsilon_0) was wrt to > > that medium. > > Right, because mu_0 and epsilon_0 are properties of the aether. So the questions remain: How does RoS a consequence of Maxwell’s equations? > > > > > > Einstein invented the RoS based on his bogus assumption that the embankment observer sees the train observer M’ is moving with different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > > > > No, the RoS is a consequence of his two postulates. > > So show us how the dos is a consequence of his (Einstein’s) two postulates. Read his paper, it's plain as day, an obvious consequence. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 07:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b77dfe2-1b9f-49bb-81da-fe47edc924e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465515 |
On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:29:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:34:31 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 3:27:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 8:01:45 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 2:13:14 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 12:56:43 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 1:16:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 9:56:41 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 7/21/18 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > >>> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity > > > > > > > >>> (RoS) > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> No, it does NOT. YOU are confused. And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is > > > > > > > >> REQUIRED by the PoR (the first postulate of SR) and the second postulate > > > > > > > >> of SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly you are wrong. The PoR defines reciprocity and RoS rejects the > > > > > > > > concept of reciprocity. Also the P2 rejects the idea of closing speeds > > > > > > > > between light and any object and the RoS is based on the idea of closing speeds. > > > > > > > > The reason why Einstein introduced the bogus concept of RoS is to explain > > > > > > > > all the paradoxes derived from the P2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the > > > > > > > >>> laws of physics in the train moving wrt me. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Yes. And in any other inertial frame as well > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> That means that if I found two events in my frame to be simultaneous, > > > > > > > >>> the train observer must also find the two identical events in his > > > > > > > >>> frame to be simultaneous. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> No. Simultaneity is not a law of physics. The fact that clocks must be > > > > > > > >> set to the "correct" time shows quite clearly that simultaneity is a > > > > > > > >> HUMAN construct (it depends on how humans set clocks; what they deem to > > > > > > > >> the “correct"). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t say that simultaneity is a law of physics. I said that Einstein > > > > > > > > introduced it as a concept of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simultaneity was a concept of physics centuries before Einstein was born. > > > > > > > Good grief. > > > > > > > > > > > > Moron, but not the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS), RoS was invented by Einstein to save SR. > > > > > > > > > > You get everything wrong all the time. Good grief, man. RoS was a _consequence_ of > > > > > certain assumptions designed to make the by-then known invariance properties of > > > > > Maxwell's equations _physical_. > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > How is invariant speed of light as set forth in Maxwell’s equation requires the bogus concept of RoS? > > > > > > Maxwell's equations did not require invariant speed of light: Maxwell's > > > theory was aether-based and the speed 1/sqrt(mu_0*epsilon_0) was wrt to > > > that medium. > > > > Right, because mu_0 and epsilon_0 are properties of the aether. So the questions remain: How does RoS a consequence of Maxwell’s equations? > > > > > > > > > Einstein invented the RoS based on his bogus assumption that the embankment observer sees the train observer M’ is moving with different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > > > > > > No, the RoS is a consequence of his two postulates. > > > > So show us how the dos is a consequence of his (Einstein’s) two postulates. > > Read his paper, it's plain as day, an obvious consequence. I read his paper, his definition of simultaneity does not include RoS. In any case if you use the Delta form of the LT you get absolute simultaneity in all frames. Your trouble begin by assuming a stationary coordinate system. In real life all objects in the universe are in a state of motion (absolute motion)....that’s why the delta form of the LT is more appropriate to determine the time of absolute simultaneity in different frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 23:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2q-dnZQeiKmvksnGnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #465140 |
On 7/21/18 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > [...] You clearly do not know the meanings of the words you attempt to use. And you clearly cannot read. So there's no point in continuing. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj21rq$1cgr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465201 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/21/18 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >> [...] > > You clearly do not know the meanings of the words you attempt to use. > And you clearly cannot read. So there's no point in continuing. i guess the meaning of the words putted together has no meaning. In spite of each individually meaning. Why, the mechanism presented is absurd, thus non-existent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 17:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b54a9d0$0$3372$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #465222 |
Wayne Dial barfed: > ... thus > non-existent. YOU are non-existent, nym-shifting disgusting troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj2i7d$93m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465234 |
Python wrote: > Wayne Dial barfed: >> ... thus non-existent. > > YOU are non-existent, nym-shifting disgusting troll. watch your language, talking like that with your mother. You disgusting stupid troll. The stuff you snipped indicates you are here for spamming and insulting alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 07:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b229cd44-3d23-4e0c-9b87-d58245bb1bba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465201 |
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 12:59:36 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/21/18 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > > [...] > > You clearly do not know the meanings of the words you attempt to use. > And you clearly cannot read. So there's no point in continuing. > > Tom Roberts Go ahead and hide behind your superior attitude. Ken: > > The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity > > (RoS) Tom Roberts: > No, it does NOT. YOU are confused. And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is > REQUIRED by the PoR (the first postulate of SR) and the second postulate > of SR. Ken Clearly you are wrong. The PoR defines reciprocity and RoS rejects the concept of reciprocity. Also the P2 rejects the idea of closing speeds between light and any object and the RoS is based on the idea of closing speeds. The reason why Einstein introduced the bogus concept of RoS is to explain all the paradoxes derived from the P2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 18:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b54aa6c$0$14300$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #465231 |
kenseto barfed: > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 12:59:36 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 7/21/18 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> [...] >> >> You clearly do not know the meanings of the words you attempt to use. >> And you clearly cannot read. So there's no point in continuing. >> >> Tom Roberts > > Go ahead and hide behind your superior attitude. You are beyond all standard, you are a piece of dirt, Ken. You are inferior to a bug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d5bb748-25ae-4c5c-be51-b9a8f20d4b9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465236 |
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 12:01:50 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto barfed: > > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 12:59:36 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 7/21/18 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> [...] > >> > >> You clearly do not know the meanings of the words you attempt to use. > >> And you clearly cannot read. So there's no point in continuing. > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > Go ahead and hide behind your superior attitude. > > You are beyond all standard, you are a piece of dirt, Ken. > > You are inferior to a bug. You are a piece of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-23 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj5hnr$1e09$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465306 |
kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 12:01:50 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto barfed: >> > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 12:59:36 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> >> On 7/21/18 12:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> [...] >> >> >> >> You clearly do not know the meanings of the words you attempt to >> >> use. >> >> And you clearly cannot read. So there's no point in continuing. >> >> >> >> Tom Roberts >> > >> > Go ahead and hide behind your superior attitude. >> >> You are beyond all standard, you are a piece of dirt, Ken. >> >> You are inferior to a bug. > > You are a piece of shit. Fully agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc18d8f0-c145-47d4-a505-d86c0092864f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465118 |
On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 6:56:41 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/21/18 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity > > (RoS) > > And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is REQUIRED by the PoR (the first > postulate of SR) and the second postulate of SR. No, relative simultaneity is demanded by SR’s antitheses that say the Aether must exist and satisfy the null results of the MMX. The first such example is the Voigt transform introduced by Voigt in 1887. Thus, relative simultaneity has nothing to do with whatever speculation (postulate) of whatever nonsense babbling such as SR. <shrug> > > The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the > > laws of physics in the train moving wrt me. > > Yes. And in any other inertial frame as well The laws of physics must be the same in any frames of reference including inertial and non-inertial ones. It is not only applied to the principle of relativity but every single hypothesis able to be postulated by any conscious beings. This is a moot point. <shrug> > > That means that if I found two events in my frame to be simultaneous, > > the train observer must also find the two identical events in his > > frame to be simultaneous. > > Simultaneity is not a law of physics. The fact that clocks must be > set to the "correct" time shows quite clearly that simultaneity is a > HUMAN construct (it depends on how humans set clocks; what they deem to > the "correct"). Any interference pattern that can be coherently repeatable everywhere and whenever can only indicate that simultaneity can only be absolute. Under relative simultaneity, it is hopeless to capture any coherently repeatable interference patterns. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj01ka$c4d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465160 |
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 6:56:41 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 7/21/18 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity >>> (RoS) >> >> And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is REQUIRED by the PoR (the first >> postulate of SR) and the second postulate of SR. > > No, relative simultaneity is demanded by SR’s antitheses that say the > Aether must exist and satisfy the null results of the MMX. The first > such example is the Voigt transform introduced by Voigt in 1887. Thus, > relative simultaneity has nothing to do with whatever speculation > (postulate) of whatever nonsense babbling such as SR. <shrug> I’d be delighted to see you attempt to derive relativity of simultaneity from the Voigt transform. Go ahead, money where the mouth is, chickenshit. > >>> The PoR says that the laws of physics in my frame is the same as the >>> laws of physics in the train moving wrt me. >> >> Yes. And in any other inertial frame as well > > The laws of physics must be the same in any frames of reference including > inertial and non-inertial ones. It is not only applied to the principle > of relativity but every single hypothesis able to be postulated by any > conscious beings. This is a moot point. <shrug> > >>> That means that if I found two events in my frame to be simultaneous, >>> the train observer must also find the two identical events in his >>> frame to be simultaneous. >> >> Simultaneity is not a law of physics. The fact that clocks must be >> set to the "correct" time shows quite clearly that simultaneity is a >> HUMAN construct (it depends on how humans set clocks; what they deem to >> the "correct"). > > Any interference pattern that can be coherently repeatable everywhere and > whenever can only indicate that simultaneity can only be absolute. Ah, so then the Voigt transform that implies an aether and relativity of simultaneity is incompatible with observed interference patterns? Good to know. Good job shitting the bed, KW. > Under relative simultaneity, it is hopeless to capture any coherently > repeatable interference patterns. <shrug> > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 16:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0aef788b-b832-4539-ba2f-3873dd58ddb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465162 |
On Saturday, July 21, 2018, Odd Bodkin aka PD the dildo maker wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > relative simultaneity is demanded by SR’s antitheses that say the > > Aether must exist and satisfy the null results of the MMX. The first > > such example is the Voigt transform introduced by Voigt in 1887. Thus, > > relative simultaneity has nothing to do with whatever speculation > > (postulate) of whatever nonsense babbling such as SR. <shrug> > > I’d be delighted to see you attempt to derive relativity of simultaneity > from the Voigt transform. Go ahead, money where the mouth is, chickenshit. It is from the time transformation equation of the Voigt transform that describes relative simultaneity. <shrug> > > The laws of physics must be the same in any frames of reference including > > inertial and non-inertial ones. It is not only applied to the principle > > of relativity but every single hypothesis able to be postulated by any > > conscious beings. This is a moot point. <shrug> > > > Any interference pattern that can be coherently repeatable everywhere and > > whenever can only indicate that simultaneity can only be absolute. > > so then the Voigt transform that implies an aether and relativity of > simultaneity is incompatible with observed interference patterns? Relative simultaneity is the culprit of the fatal contradiction to the twin paradox, dumb ass! <shrug> > > Under relative simultaneity, it is hopeless to capture any coherently > > repeatable interference patterns. <shrug> That is so true. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <63705a42-6509-770b-dece-0395c2b362be@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #465160 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 6:56:41 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 7/21/18 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity >>> (RoS) >> And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is REQUIRED by the PoR (the first >> postulate of SR) and the second postulate of SR. > > No, relative simultaneity is demanded by SR’s antitheses So you have also no idea what the word “antithesis” means. > that say the Aether must exist and satisfy the null results of the MMX. > The first such example is the Voigt transform introduced by Voigt in > 1887. Thus, relative simultaneity has nothing to do with whatever > speculation (postulate) of whatever nonsense babbling such as SR. > <shrug> Voigt’s transform(ation), in modern notation x' = x − v t y' = y∕γ z' = z∕γ t' = t − v x∕c² 1∕γ = √(1 − v²∕c²), is not wrong per se (you get the experimentally confirmed Lorentz transformation if you multiply all right-hand sides with γ) – x' = γ (x − v t) y' = y z' = z t' = γ (t − v∕c² x) –, but it is based on the assumption of an incompressible light medium, thus cannot be used for non-electromagnetic phenomena. So it does not pertain to all experimental evidence within its domain. Lorentz’ transformation (1904) does, but only with Poincaré’s correction and choosing suitable coefficients (1905). Einstein found out independently in OEdoMB (1905) that one does not need an undetectable luminiferous aether with ad-hoc special properties to arrive at the Lorentz–Poincaré transformation with which all observations can be explained; assuming the two principles, the principle of relativity and the principle of light speed constancy, suffices. As a result, such an aether is determined a superfluous assumption. The history of Lorentz ether theory and the Lorentz transformation is like claiming that Earth is rotating *because* pink unicorns are hopping around on the Moon, and then getting no images of pink unicorns hopping around on the Moon whatsoever from LRO despite the highest resolution, with Earth still rotating. The mentally *sane* then move on from believing in undetectable pink unicorns on the Moon. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations#Voigt_(1887)> pp. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-21 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj02ps$e1v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465165 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: >> On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 6:56:41 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >>> On 7/21/18 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> The PoR rejects the bogus concept of Relativity of Simultaneity >>>> (RoS) >>> And RoS is NOT "bogus" -- it is REQUIRED by the PoR (the first >>> postulate of SR) and the second postulate of SR. >> >> No, relative simultaneity is demanded by SR’s antitheses > > So you have also no idea what the word “antithesis” means. > >> that say the Aether must exist and satisfy the null results of the MMX. >> The first such example is the Voigt transform introduced by Voigt in >> 1887. Thus, relative simultaneity has nothing to do with whatever >> speculation (postulate) of whatever nonsense babbling such as SR. >> <shrug> > > Voigt’s transform(ation), in modern notation > > x' = x − v t > y' = y∕γ > z' = z∕γ > t' = t − v x∕c² > > 1∕γ = √(1 − v²∕c²), > > is not wrong per se (you get the experimentally confirmed Lorentz > transformation if you multiply all right-hand sides with γ) – > > x' = γ (x − v t) > y' = y > z' = z > t' = γ (t − v∕c² x) > > –, but it is based on the assumption of an incompressible light medium, thus > cannot be used for non-electromagnetic phenomena. > > So it does not pertain to all experimental evidence within its domain. > Lorentz’ transformation (1904) does, but only with Poincaré’s correction > and choosing suitable coefficients (1905). > > Einstein found out independently in OEdoMB (1905) that one does not need an > undetectable luminiferous aether with ad-hoc special properties to arrive at > the Lorentz–Poincaré transformation with which all observations can be > explained; assuming the two principles, the principle of relativity and the > principle of light speed constancy, suffices. As a result, such an aether > is determined a superfluous assumption. > > The history of Lorentz ether theory and the Lorentz transformation is like > claiming that Earth is rotating *because* pink unicorns are hopping around > on the Moon, and then getting no images of pink unicorns hopping around on > the Moon whatsoever from LRO despite the highest resolution, with Earth > still rotating. The mentally *sane* then move on from believing in > undetectable pink unicorns on the Moon. Unless you’re like KW, for whom the association with Einstein is unaccountably nauseating in which case even pink unicorns would be preferable. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations#Voigt_(1887)> > pp. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-22 00:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <93a0c9e3-3eb9-baa8-5f6e-8ff40cb58164@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #465165 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> […] that say the Aether must exist and satisfy the null results of the MMX.
>> The first such example is the Voigt transform introduced by Voigt in
>> 1887. Thus, relative simultaneity has nothing to do with whatever
>> speculation (postulate) of whatever nonsense babbling such as SR.
>> <shrug>
>
> Voigt’s transform(ation), in modern notation
>
> x' = x − v t
> y' = y∕γ
> z' = z∕γ
> t' = t − v x∕c²
>
> 1∕γ = √(1 − v²∕c²),
>
> is not wrong per se (you get the experimentally confirmed Lorentz
> transformation if you multiply all right-hand sides with γ) –
>
> x' = γ (x − v t)
> y' = y
> z' = z
> t' = γ (t − v∕c² x)
>
> –, but it is based on the assumption of an incompressible light medium, thus
> cannot be used for non-electromagnetic phenomena.
Maybe I was wrong in saying that the Voigt transformation is NOT wrong per
se. Because it does appear to violate the principle of relativity (PoR).
If we attempt the reverse coordinate transformation using it, then we find:
x' = x − v t
x = x' + v t
= x' + v (t' + v x∕c²)
x = x' + v t' + v²∕c² x
x (1 − v²∕c²) = x' + v t'
x = 1∕(1 − v²∕c²) (x' + v 't)
x = γ² (x' + v t').
This would mean that in determining the spatial coordinate along the line of
motion, the speed relative to and the spatial coordinate in the primed frame
are more important than the speed relative to and the spatial coordinate in
the unprimed frame. IOW, the primed frame would be preferred over the
unprimed frame. This violates the PoR.
For the other coordinates, there also is no reciprocity:
y = γ y'
z = γ z'
t = t' + v x∕c²
= t' + v∕c² (x' + v t)
t = t' + v∕c² x' + v²∕c² t
t (1 − v²∕c²) = t' + v∕c² x'
t = 1∕(1 − v²∕c²) (t' + v∕c² x')
t = γ² (t' + v∕c² x').
By contrast, the Lorentz transformation:
x' = γ (x − v t)
x'∕γ = x − v t
x = x'∕γ + v t
= x'∕γ + v (γ (t' + v∕c² x'))
= x'∕γ + γ v t' + γ v²∕c² x'
= γ (x'∕γ² + v t' + v²∕c² x')
= γ ((1 − v²∕c² + v²∕c²) x' + v t')
x = γ (x' + v t')
y' = y
y = y'
z' = z
z = z'
t' = γ (t − v∕c² x)
t'∕γ = t − v∕c² x
t = t'∕γ + v∕c² x
= t'∕γ + v∕c² (γ (x' + v t'))
= t'∕γ + γ v∕c² x' + γ v²∕c² t'
= γ (t'∕γ² + v∕c² x' + v²∕c² t')
= γ ((1 − v²∕c² + v²∕c²) t' + v∕c² x')
t = γ (t' + v∕c² x')
> So it does not pertain to all experimental evidence within its domain.
The problem appears to go deeper than that. Opinions?
> […]
> The history of Lorentz ether theory and the Lorentz transformation is like
> claiming that Earth is rotating *because* pink unicorns are hopping around
> on the Moon, and then getting no images of pink unicorns hopping around on
> the Moon whatsoever from LRO despite the highest resolution, with Earth
> still rotating. The mentally *sane* then move on from believing in
> undetectable pink unicorns on the Moon.
Guess what the mentally *insane* will do instead? That’s right, they will
assert a conspiracy among selenographers (physicists), supported by NASA
(pick any organization remotely related to science here), whose goal is to
prevent us from seeing (publishing) those unicorns (aether evidence) :)
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web