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 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjdd1k$pin$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465840 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:34:14 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog> wrote: >> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >> >> > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong >with that? >> >> It is a non-useful concept because you have not shown it to be possible> >> to generate numbers that may be compared with experiment. >http://www.modelmechаnics.org/2015experiment.pdf >> >> Nobody in this forum has any idea how to generate numbers from your so-ca>lled >> theory and you refuse to help anybody out. >Hey idiot you can generate number with my equations. WHAT equations? Your 2015experiment.pdf has exactly 2 equations in it! (That's actually pretty good for you, I didn't expect any since you are still stumped by 3rd grade math) It's just as well that your link doesn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c309bff-3ec0-4cd3-a4fc-ed4a4ed98764@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465840 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:47:12 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:34:14 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > > > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? > > > > It is a non-useful concept because you have not shown it to be possible > > to generate numbers that may be compared with experiment. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf No calculation shown. NONE! > > > > > Nobody in this forum has any idea how to generate numbers from your so-called > > theory and you refuse to help anybody out. > > Hey idiot you can generate number with my equations. Why should we? Even you have trouble generating numbers from your own theory! You have refused to produce even a simple example calculation. Since you cannot do it you obviously think we are smarter. Thanks for the compliment. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 07:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcc0b2bb-d38f-4539-928c-bd6ca3ea850a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465920 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:08:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:47:12 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:34:14 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? > > > > > > It is a non-useful concept because you have not shown it to be possible > > > to generate numbers that may be compared with experiment. > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > No calculation shown. NONE! There were calculations and you wouldn’t understand it anyway. You are a math illiterate. > > > > > > > > Nobody in this forum has any idea how to generate numbers from your so-called > > > theory and you refuse to help anybody out. > > > > Hey idiot you can generate number with my equations. > > Why should we? Even you have trouble generating numbers > from your own theory! > > You have refused to produce even a simple example calculation. > Since you cannot do it you obviously think we are smarter. > Thanks for the compliment. > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 16:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pjfbl1$1l4s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465931 |
Op 27-jul-2018 om 16:46 schreef kenseto: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:08:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:47:12 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:34:14 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic >>> Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s >>>>> wrong with that? >>>> >>>> It is a non-useful concept because you have not shown it to be >>>> possible to generate numbers that may be compared with >>>> experiment. >>> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >> >> No calculation shown. NONE! > > There were calculations and you wouldn’t understand it anyway. You > are a math illiterate. You mean like this? http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjfe0g$asa$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465931 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:08:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> No calculation shown. NONE! >There were calculations Where? > and you wouldn't understand it anyway. You are a math illiterate. Math illiterate? Stupid Ken, YOU are the one who can't solve (-6)/(-2) even after YEARS. An adult can't be much more of a math illiterate than that! You must be projecting your own math illiteracy on Ed. >> > > Nobody in this forum has any idea how to generate numbers from your so-called >> > > theory and you refuse to help anybody out. >> > Hey idiot you can generate number with my equations. >> Why should we? Even you have trouble generating numbers >> from your own theory! >> You have refused to produce even a simple example calculation. >> Since you cannot do it you obviously think we are smarter. >> Thanks for the compliment. >> Ed Show your calculations, Ken!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a995e1f-eef2-419f-833f-c328ca3563f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465828 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 2:24:37 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? Everything. It is an undefined buzzword. There is no justification for nor any explanation how it propagates light and how it gives light the properties it obviously has, such as speed invariance in all inertial frames, how it limits the speed of elementary particles and charged atoms, etc. QED is a MUCH better model of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 21:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3373517d-99e7-47ba-adde-c2f2ab082809@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465836 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:39:36 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 2:24:37 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? > > Everything. It is an undefined buzzword. There is no justification for > nor any explanation how it propagates light and how it gives light the > properties it obviously has, such as speed invariance in all inertial > frames, how it limits the speed of elementary particles and charged atoms, > etc. QED is a MUCH better model of light. Lights are waves in the E-Strings that composed of the E-Matrix. Photons are wave-packets of lightwaves in neighboring E-Strings. A photon is generated by the source due to its state of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. You didn’t read my book.....all you do is making unsupported assertions about my theory. The QED model of light is explained by my model of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 05:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f25fa407-ea9a-4ff9-beb3-b5966f731104@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465898 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:13:18 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:39:36 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 2:24:37 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with > > > that? > > > > Everything. It is an undefined buzzword. There is no justification for > > nor any explanation how it propagates light and how it gives light the > > properties it obviously has, such as speed invariance in all inertial > > frames, how it limits the speed of elementary particles and charged atoms, > > etc. QED is a MUCH better model of light. > > Lights are waves in the E-Strings that composed of the E-Matrix. Unsubstantiated assertion that is refuted by the photoelectric effect. > Photons are wave-packets of lightwaves in neighboring E-Strings. Unsubstantiated assertion based on an undetectable "E-matrix." > A photon is generated by the source due to its state of absolute motion > in the E-Matrix. Irrational assertion because absolute motion is undetectable. > You didn’t read my book..... Another unsubstantiated assertion that is dead wrong. > all you do is making unsupported assertions about my theory. Asinine claim. > The QED model of light is explained by my model of light. No, it's not. You have no model since it is based upon an undetectable and unmeasurable fantasies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c62dfee8-99b6-4210-8ef8-78b7254892d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465917 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:36:33 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:13:18 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:39:36 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 2:24:37 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with > > > > that? > > > > > > Everything. It is an undefined buzzword. There is no justification for > > > nor any explanation how it propagates light and how it gives light the > > > properties it obviously has, such as speed invariance in all inertial > > > frames, how it limits the speed of elementary particles and charged atoms, > > > etc. QED is a MUCH better model of light. > > > > Lights are waves in the E-Strings that composed of the E-Matrix. > > Unsubstantiated assertion that is refuted by the photoelectric effect. > > > Photons are wave-packets of lightwaves in neighboring E-Strings. > > Unsubstantiated assertion based on an undetectable “E-matrix." The E-Matrix was detected by many past experiments and I have proposed experiments that will detect absolute motion of an object in the following link: http://www.modelmechamics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > A photon is generated by the source due to its state of absolute motion > > in the E-Matrix. > > Irrational assertion because absolute motion is undetectable. Uninformed wrong assertion....absolute motion is the reason why light comes in the form of photons. > > > You didn’t read my book..... > > Another unsubstantiated assertion that is dead wrong. > > > all you do is making unsupported assertions about my theory. > > Asinine claim. > > > The QED model of light is explained by my model of light. > > No, it's not. You have no model since it is based upon an undetectable > and unmeasurable fantasies. Moron, the E-Matrix is detected and measured everyday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjfdmh$asa$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465927 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:36:33 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> > Photons are wave-packets of lightwaves in neighboring E-Strings. >> Unsubstantiated assertion based on an undetectable "E-matrix." >The E-Matrix was detected by many past experiments Wrong. You redefined the results of experiments to "detect" your "E-matrix." What you need to do to "detect" your "E-matrix" is to derive an experiment that will have Outcome X if there *is* an "E-matrix" and Outcome Y if there is *not* an "E-matrix". And then actually perform it. No such experiment has been done. > and I have proposed experiments that will detect absolute motion of an > object Proposals are not actual detection. >> > A photon is generated by the source due to its state of absolute motion >> > in the E-Matrix. >> Irrational assertion because absolute motion is undetectable. >Uninformed wrong assertion....absolute motion is the reason why light comes > in the form of photons. Your assertions are not evidence, Ken. >> No, it's not. You have no model since it is based upon an undetectable >> and unmeasurable fantasies. >Moron, the E-Matrix is detected and measured everyday. Your assertions are not evidence, Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8aad54c-8129-4702-bdf4-1d5d3d403f16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465927 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:40:06 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:36:33 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:13:18 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > Lights are waves in the E-Strings that composed of the E-Matrix. > > > > Unsubstantiated assertion that is refuted by the photoelectric effect. > > > > > Photons are wave-packets of lightwaves in neighboring E-Strings. > > > > Unsubstantiated assertion based on an undetectable “E-matrix." > > The E-Matrix was detected by many past experiments Completely false assertion. You are either mentally-deficient or a liar. > and I have proposed experiments that will detect absolute motion of an > object in the following link: http://www.modelmechamics.org/2015experiment.pdf They won't do what you assert. > > > A photon is generated by the source due to its state of absolute motion > > > in the E-Matrix. > > > > Irrational assertion because absolute motion is undetectable. > > Uninformed wrong assertion. Nope. Absolute motion has NEVER been detected. >...absolute motion is the reason why light comes in the form of photons. No, it's not. That is just another asinine assertion. > > > You didn’t read my book..... > > > > Another unsubstantiated assertion that is dead wrong. > > > > > all you do is making unsupported assertions about my theory. > > > > Asinine claim. > > > > > The QED model of light is explained by my model of light. > > > > No, it's not. You have no model since it is based upon an undetectable > > and unmeasurable fantasies. > > Moron, Imbecile. > the E-Matrix is detected and measured everyday. No, it isn't, mentally-unhinged liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 01:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjdr0d$19ss$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465828 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>> >>>> >>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. >>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) >>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, >>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical >>>> baggage of aether eh! >>> >>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. >> >> Stop making up stuff. > > How is what I said: making up stiff??? That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. Rather than look it up, you just made it up. > >> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. >> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. > > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? >> >> >>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The >>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties >>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting >>> all the forces of nature. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other >>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, >>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name >>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be >>>> discovered substance. >>>> >>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. >>>> >>>> keith stein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for >>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it >>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). >>>>>> >>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, >>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely >>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", >>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". >>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example >>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light >>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was >>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's >>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as >>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", >>>>>> >>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long >>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. >>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which >>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in >>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; >>>>>> >>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. >>>>>> >>>>>>> light is NOT >>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, >>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the >>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a >>>>>>> vacuum, too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. >>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference >>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do >>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over >>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? >>>>>> >>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES >>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on >>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that >>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. >>>>> >>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>> >>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel >>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, >>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts >>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! >>>>>> >>>>>> keith stein >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 21:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca4ce7e4-46c2-449e-a451-bf5350dfe25b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465890 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. > >>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) > >>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, > >>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical > >>>> baggage of aether eh! > >>> > >>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. > >> > >> Stop making up stuff. > > > > How is what I said: making up stiff??? > > That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. > Rather than look it up, you just made it up. That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. > > > > >> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. > >> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. > > > > The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? > >> > >> > >>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The > >>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties > >>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting > >>> all the forces of nature. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other > >>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, > >>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name > >>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be > >>>> discovered substance. > >>>> > >>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. > >>>> > >>>> keith stein > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for > >>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it > >>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, > >>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely > >>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", > >>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". > >>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example > >>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light > >>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was > >>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's > >>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as > >>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long > >>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. > >>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which > >>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in > >>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> light is NOT > >>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, > >>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the > >>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a > >>>>>>> vacuum, too. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. > >>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference > >>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do > >>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over > >>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES > >>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on > >>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that > >>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > >>>>> > >>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>> > >>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel > >>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, > >>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts > >>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 12:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjf29l$14t2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465899 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. >>>>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) >>>>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, >>>>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical >>>>>> baggage of aether eh! >>>>> >>>>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. >>>> >>>> Stop making up stuff. >>> >>> How is what I said: making up stiff??? >> >> That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. >> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. > > That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is “a medium is the substance that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another.” It is not something that occupies all space. The water in a pond is the medium for sound waves in the pond, but the water does not occupy all space. The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves in a Slinky, but does not occupy all space. You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. When are you going to stop bullshitting? > >> >>> >>>> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. >>>> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. >>> >>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? >>>> >>>> >>>>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The >>>>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties >>>>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting >>>>> all the forces of nature. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other >>>>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, >>>>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name >>>>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be >>>>>> discovered substance. >>>>>> >>>>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. >>>>>> >>>>>> keith stein >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for >>>>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it >>>>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, >>>>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely >>>>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", >>>>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". >>>>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example >>>>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light >>>>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was >>>>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as >>>>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long >>>>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. >>>>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which >>>>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in >>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> light is NOT >>>>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, >>>>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the >>>>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a >>>>>>>>> vacuum, too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. >>>>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference >>>>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do >>>>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over >>>>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES >>>>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on >>>>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that >>>>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel >>>>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, >>>>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts >>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4303b74-2f13-444e-a78c-71d53d6d13f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465915 |
On Friday, 27 July 2018 14:13:45 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people > like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. You're doing the same about Pythagorean theorem, poor halfbrain... When are you going to stop bullshitting?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2fb9e8a1-2e57-401b-9625-38478727ff73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465915 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. > >>>>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) > >>>>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, > >>>>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical > >>>>>> baggage of aether eh! > >>>>> > >>>>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. > >>>> > >>>> Stop making up stuff. > >>> > >>> How is what I said: making up stiff??? > >> > >> That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. > >> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. > > > > That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. > > No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is “a medium is the substance > that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another.” It is > not something that occupies all space. The water in a pond is the medium > for sound waves in the pond, but the water does not occupy all space. The > steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves in a Slinky, but does > not occupy all space. Idiot....The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one location to another. The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies all of space. The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law and that’s why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. > > You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people > like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. > > When are you going to stop bullshitting? > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. > >>>> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. > >>> > >>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The > >>>>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties > >>>>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting > >>>>> all the forces of nature. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other > >>>>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, > >>>>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name > >>>>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be > >>>>>> discovered substance. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for > >>>>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it > >>>>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, > >>>>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely > >>>>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", > >>>>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". > >>>>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example > >>>>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light > >>>>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was > >>>>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's > >>>>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as > >>>>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long > >>>>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. > >>>>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which > >>>>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in > >>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> light is NOT > >>>>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, > >>>>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the > >>>>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a > >>>>>>>>> vacuum, too. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. > >>>>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference > >>>>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do > >>>>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over > >>>>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES > >>>>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on > >>>>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that > >>>>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel > >>>>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, > >>>>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts > >>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2af796ee-a4c5-4d98-8287-0106b53069fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465925 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:29:03 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot Imbecile. > ....The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one location > to another. The "E-matrix" is a non-existent fiction fabricated from a feverished incompetent mind. > The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies all of space. The E-Matrix" is pure baloney, which means one can sustain oneself anywhere in the cosmos by snacking on the "E-Matrix." Yum-m-m. > The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law and that’s > why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. But baloney causes attenuation .... That's why Seto's universe is opaque.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjfd8t$asa$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #465925 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> That is not the meaning of "medium" in physics. >> >> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. >> > That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don=E2=80=99t know so >you just make it up. >> No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is "a medium is the >> substance that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to >> another." It is not something that occupies all space. >Idiot. Why, yes you are, Ken. >...The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one location >to another. The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies all of >space. Stupid Ken, the point was that a medium is not defined to occupy all space, like you claimed. It doesn't matter that your failed theory invents a nonexistent medium that occupies all space, the term medium in general does not mean that. > The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law and that's > why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. Assertion is not evidence. (You provide no proofs or calculations) >> You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it's what physics says, when people >> like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. >> When are you going to stop bullshitting? That's right, Ken. You always invent new meanings for terms and then claim that's how physics defines the terms. I suppose that is a strange form of psychological projection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 15:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjfe5c$1qoj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #465925 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. >>>>>>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) >>>>>>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, >>>>>>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical >>>>>>>> baggage of aether eh! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop making up stuff. >>>>> >>>>> How is what I said: making up stiff??? >>>> >>>> That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. >>>> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. >>> >>> That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. >> >> No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is “a medium is the substance >> that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another.” It is >> not something that occupies all space. The water in a pond is the medium >> for sound waves in the pond, but the water does not occupy all space. The >> steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves in a Slinky, but does >> not occupy all space. > > Idiot....The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one > location to another. The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies > all of space. The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law > and that’s why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. Nobody gives a damn about the E-matrix. The thing you said that is WRONG is that it is the PHYSICS definition of medium is that it extends throughout all space. The PHYSICS definition of medium is not that, and I provided to you the PHYSICS definition that you couldn’t be bothered to look up. If you would constantly say that KEN SETO’S definition of a medium is this or that, then nobody would care. But when you PRETEND to be knowledgeable about what PHYSICISTS say (when you don’t), then you get called out. > >> >> You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people >> like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. >> >> When are you going to stop bullshitting? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. >>>>>> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. >>>>> >>>>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The >>>>>>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties >>>>>>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting >>>>>>> all the forces of nature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other >>>>>>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, >>>>>>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name >>>>>>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be >>>>>>>> discovered substance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for >>>>>>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it >>>>>>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, >>>>>>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely >>>>>>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", >>>>>>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example >>>>>>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light >>>>>>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was >>>>>>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as >>>>>>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long >>>>>>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. >>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which >>>>>>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in >>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> light is NOT >>>>>>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, >>>>>>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the >>>>>>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a >>>>>>>>>>> vacuum, too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. >>>>>>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference >>>>>>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do >>>>>>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over >>>>>>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES >>>>>>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on >>>>>>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that >>>>>>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel >>>>>>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, >>>>>>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts >>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-27 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28fb05ed-838b-4751-9102-332d2c277e3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #465941 |
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 14:04, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This seems a strange question coming from you Ken. > >>>>>>>> (I'd rather call it the 'E-Matrix', than invoke 'AETHER' eh! ;) > >>>>>>>> To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by the E-Matrix, > >>>>>>>> but at the very least it does not come with all the historical > >>>>>>>> baggage of aether eh! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A medium is a general term for a substance occupying all of space. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Stop making up stuff. > >>>>> > >>>>> How is what I said: making up stiff??? > >>>> > >>>> That is not the meaning of “medium” in physics. > >>>> Rather than look it up, you just made it up. > >>> > >>> That is the meaning of a medium in physics. You don’t know so you just make it up. > >> > >> No, Ken. The physics definition of a medium is “a medium is the substance > >> that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another.” It is > >> not something that occupies all space. The water in a pond is the medium > >> for sound waves in the pond, but the water does not occupy all space. The > >> steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves in a Slinky, but does > >> not occupy all space. > > > > Idiot....The E-Matrix is a medium that carries light-waves from one > > location to another. The E-Matrix is definitely something that occupies > > all of space. The structure of the E-Matrix obeys the inverse sure law > > and that’s why light and gravity obey the inverse square law. > > Nobody gives a damn about the E-matrix. The thing you said that is WRONG is > that it is the PHYSICS definition of medium is that it extends throughout > all space. The PHYSICS definition of medium is not that, and I provided to > you the PHYSICS definition that you couldn’t be bothered to look up. Hey moron .....the E-Matrix is a material medium or substance or entity occupy all of space. It acts as a carrier of light waves. This is an expanded definition for the word “medium”. However, it is allowed because it is used to explain a new physics theory. I don’t care that you don’t like it....too fucking bad. > > If you would constantly say that KEN SETO’S definition of a medium is this > or that, then nobody would care. But when you PRETEND to be knowledgeable > about what PHYSICISTS say (when you don’t), then you get called out. I don’t care if you or anybody don’t like it.....too fucking bad. > > > > >> > >> You keep making stuff up and PRETENDING it’s what physics says, when people > >> like me who have actually READ physics know otherwise. > >> > >> When are you going to stop bullshitting? > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> The water in a pond is a medium for sound waves. > >>>>>> The steel in a Slinky is the medium for compression waves. > >>>>> > >>>>> The E-Matrix is a medium for light propagation....what’s wrong with that? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The aether and the E-Matrix are specific terms for this substance. The > >>>>>>> E-Matrix alone is a physical entity and it has unique physical properties > >>>>>>> that enable it to explain all the processes of nature--including uniting > >>>>>>> all the forces of nature. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Also i don't really believe there is anything other > >>>>>>>> than the atoms which the light is transmitted through, > >>>>>>>> so once once 'E-Matrix' wins over 'aether' as a name > >>>>>>>> for the medium, by not suggesting some new yet to be > >>>>>>>> discovered substance. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> God Bless you and your your research Ken. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:11:03 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2018 07:02, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> MAXWELL WAS RIGHT ! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On some thing, yes. But here, no -- there is no evidence whatsoever for > >>>>>>>>>>> the existence of an aether, and considerable evidence against it > >>>>>>>>>>> (quantum optics, particle physics involving photons, etc.). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Well i did not mean to suggest that Maxwell was infallible, > >>>>>>>>>> but here in his insistence "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" i definitely > >>>>>>>>>> think Maxwell had the right idea. "aether" is a "straw man", > >>>>>>>>>> Maxwell does not talk of "aether". > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell emphasized "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". His primary example > >>>>>>>>>>>> of a medium was "air", but i'm sure he was aware that light > >>>>>>>>>>>> can travel from the stars without air. I don't think it was > >>>>>>>>>>>> known that space is full of low pressure Hydrogen in Maxwell's > >>>>>>>>>>>> day, but he sure knew there must be "something" there, to act as > >>>>>>>>>>>> medium for his e-m waves. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> He called that medium "aether", > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No he didn't. At least not in his long > >>>>>>>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he did NOT. > >>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's medium is simply the stuff (matter) which > >>>>>>>>>> the e-m wave is traveling through. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> and it PERMEATED THE AIR, because in > >>>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory light was a mechanical wave in the aether; > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No it was an electromagnetic was in the medium. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> light is NOT > >>>>>>>>>>> a mechanical wave in the air (that would be sound). In his theory, > >>>>>>>>>>> neither air nor any other optical medium is necessary for the > >>>>>>>>>>> propagation of light, only the aether is required. So aether permeates a > >>>>>>>>>>> vacuum, too. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Well if YOU insist on aether, i don't really mind. > >>>>>>>>>> The important point is that it defines the same frame of reference > >>>>>>>>>> as the matter which it permeates. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If you think the intergalactic hydrogen forms Maxwell's aether, how do > >>>>>>>>>>> you suppose light propagates from one hydrogen atom to the next, over > >>>>>>>>>>> distances on the order of a billion times larger than the atoms themselves? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What me and Maxwell are telling you Tom is that ALL WAVES > >>>>>>>>>> travel with some characteristic speed, which depends on > >>>>>>>>>> the medium and the type of wave, and in all cases that > >>>>>>>>>> characteristic speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So what is your objection that the MEDIUM is called the AETHER? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As to how electromagnetic waves travel > >>>>>>>>>> between atoms, i leave that to you atomic physicists, > >>>>>>>>>> but if at the macroscopic level your theory contradicts > >>>>>>>>>> Maxwell's theory, then i say your theory is wrong eh! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> keith stein > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web