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 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkc7q1$1ai5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467199 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >> >>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon that idea as a guiding >>>> principle as it leads straight to scholastics, not science. >>> >>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful >>> theory of Model Mechanics? >> >> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have >> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with >> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. > > Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > processes for all the successful math developed so far. Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers > for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math > for gravity and relativity. > >> >> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent >> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its >> inherent beauty. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35238a5c-4897-4243-8c54-44d116c72b0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467207 |
On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 15:45:40 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > physical explanation and then develops the math from that. Odd, poor idiot, you have no clue how science works. You're just a brainwashed fanatic idiot playing smart by waving his arms,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-12 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3addc2b-5ddd-4d2d-ac11-9b5b6d649839@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467207 |
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon that idea as a guiding > >>>> principle as it leads straight to scholastics, not science. > >>> > >>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful > >>> theory of Model Mechanics? > >> > >> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have > >> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with > >> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. > > > > Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > > processes for all the successful math developed so far. > > Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t > developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. > > > > So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers > > for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math > > for gravity and relativity. > > > >> > >> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent > >> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its > >> inherent beauty. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-12 18:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfd23a1d-0426-4e9c-9437-a7805b340cd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467662 |
On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 7:29:51 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: [] > > > > > > Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > > > processes for all the successful math developed so far. > > > > Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > > here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > > physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t > > developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > > So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for > the electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger > equations based on the the existence of probability waves? > I don’t think so. > History and nature are not obligated to follow what you think. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-12 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6c8adb1-015e-41c4-881c-025745cfb48f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467669 |
On Monday, 13 August 2018 03:29:20 UTC+2, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 7:29:51 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > [] > > > > > > > > Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > > > > processes for all the successful math developed so far. > > > > > > Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > > > here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > > > physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t > > > developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > > > > So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for > > the electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger > > equations based on the the existence of probability waves? > > I don’t think so. > > > > History and nature are not obligated to follow what you think. Because they are obligated to follow what you think, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f49f7088-60cd-4f37-91dd-992a6fbc4e6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467689 |
On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:49:18 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Monday, 13 August 2018 03:29:20 UTC+2, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 7:29:51 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for > > > the electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger > > > equations based on the the existence of probability waves? > > > I don’t think so. > > > > > > > History and nature are not obligated to follow what you think. > > > Because they are obligated to follow what you think, of course. No, I have no special influence over history or nature either. None of us do. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pks1be$8f7$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467662 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon that idea as a guiding >>>>>> principle as it leads straight to scholastics, not science. >>>>> >>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful >>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? >>>> >>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have >>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with >>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. >>> >>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical >>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. >> >> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, >> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a >> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t >> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > > So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the > electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based > on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave equation that does the job. > >> >> >>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers >>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math >>> for gravity and relativity. >>> >>>> >>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent >>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its >>>> inherent beauty. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2018-08-13 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8afae0f8-8de4-4f03-ab82-666887c152cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467717 |
On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon that idea as a guiding > >>>>>> principle as it leads straight to scholastics, not science. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful > >>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? > >>>> > >>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have > >>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with > >>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. > >>> > >>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > >>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. > >> > >> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > >> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > >> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t > >> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > > > > So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the > > electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based > > on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. > > Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in > your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had > established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that > anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger > embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a > principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and > found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he > started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave > equation that does the job. That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the physical model of our universe to develop his math. He based his math on the existing wave model of his time. Since he was educated that there is no medium exists in space to support his wave equations so he dreamt up the non-exiting probability waves to explain his equations. I reject what Schrodinger dreamt up. I posited that there exists one real physical description of our universe that can explain all the math developed so far. I used the Pyramid Technique to come up with such a physical description of our universe and the result is Model Mechanics. The paper in the following link shows how I developed the physical model of Model Mechanics: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015foxi.pdf The physical model of Model Mechanics not only is able to explain Schrodinger’s equations physically, but it also explain and unite all the forces of nature (including gravity). > > > >> > >> > >>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers > >>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math > >>> for gravity and relativity. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent > >>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its > >>>> inherent beauty. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2018-08-13 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pks8t0$lk0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467720 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon >>>>>>>> that idea as a guiding >>>>>>>> principle as it leads straight to >>>>>>>> scholastics, not science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful >>>>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? >>>>>> >>>>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have >>>>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with >>>>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical >>>>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. >>>> >>>> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, >>>> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a >>>> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t >>>> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. >>> >>> So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the >>> electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based >>> on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. >> >> Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in >> your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had >> established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that >> anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger >> embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a >> principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and >> found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he >> started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave >> equation that does the job. > > That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the > physical model of our universe to develop his math. Yes he did. It doesn’t have to be wholly new, independent of prior work. ALL new theories have built on the prior work of others. Newton did that and wrote about it. So did Copernicus. So did Planck. So did Bohr. So did Einstein. > He based his math on the existing wave model of his time. Yes, building in the work of others. Like is always done. > Since he was educated that there is no medium exists in space No he was not. > to support his wave equations so he dreamt up the non-exiting probability > waves to explain his equations. You say probability waves are nonexisting but you can’t know whether they exist or not. The only way to assess whether a physical thing exists or not is to test a hypothesis in experiment. Since Schrödinger’s wave equation has so much experimental verification (doing what you do not do: calculating numbers from the theory and comparing them with measured numbers), then physicists rightfully say that probability waves work as a successful idea and are therefore real as real can be. This experimental verification is the ONLY way in science to assess whether a concept exists or not in nature. You want to rely on common sense and everyday experience to decide what exists and what does not, but science does not follow that, and you’re a fool to do it. > > I reject what Schrodinger dreamt up. And nobody cares what you accept or reject. What matters, and the ONLY thing that matters in science is experimental verification, period, end of story. > I posited that there exists one real physical description of our universe > that can explain all the math developed so far. I used the Pyramid > Technique to come up with such a physical description of our universe and > the result is Model Mechanics. The paper in the following link shows how > I developed the physical model of Model Mechanics: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015foxi.pdf > > The physical model of Model Mechanics not only is able to explain > Schrodinger’s equations physically, but it also explain and unite all the > forces of nature (including gravity). > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers >>>>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math >>>>> for gravity and relativity. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent >>>>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its >>>>>> inherent beauty. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | 2018-08-13 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85f7f798-5c2d-4f66-b9a6-e2de75149815@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467726 |
On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon > >>>>>>>> that idea as a guiding > >>>>>>>> principle as it leads straight to > >>>>>>>> scholastics, not science. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful > >>>>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have > >>>>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with > >>>>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > >>>>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. > >>>> > >>>> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > >>>> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > >>>> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t > >>>> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > >>> > >>> So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the > >>> electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based > >>> on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. > >> > >> Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in > >> your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had > >> established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that > >> anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger > >> embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a > >> principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and > >> found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he > >> started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave > >> equation that does the job. > > > > That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the > > physical model of our universe to develop his math. > > Yes he did. It doesn’t have to be wholly new, independent of prior work. > ALL new theories have built on the prior work of others. Newton did that > and wrote about it. So did Copernicus. So did Planck. So did Bohr. So did > Einstein. No, he didn’t. He used the existing wave-model to develop his equation and then he concluded that the electron become probability waves and these probability waves reconstituted into a real electron. These sound like the old added epicycles invented to explain the observed orbit of planets around the sun. He failed to realize that there is a sound physical explanation as follows: the electron is confined to the divergent geometry of the E-Matrix and the source and the screen are in a state of absolute motion. So the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the source and the screen and the distance between the source and the screen. > > > He based his math on the existing wave model of his time. > > Yes, building in the work of others. Like is always done. > > > Since he was educated that there is no medium exists in space > > No he was not. Yes he was. > > > to support his wave equations so he dreamt up the non-exiting probability > > waves to explain his equations. > > You say probability waves are nonexisting but you can’t know whether they > exist or not. The only way to assess whether a physical thing exists or not > is to test a hypothesis in experiment. 1. probability waves do not exist. 2. the re-collapse of the probability waves into a real electron is fiction. 3. the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on: the divergency of the structure of the E-Matrix; the state of absolute motion of the source and the screen; the distance of separation between the source and the screen; and the velocity of the electron. >Since Schrödinger’s wave equation > has so much experimental verification (doing what you do not do: > calculating numbers from the theory and comparing them with measured > numbers), then physicists rightfully say that probability waves work as a > successful idea and are therefore real as real can be. This experimental > verification is the ONLY way in science to assess whether a concept exists > or not in nature. You want to rely on common sense and everyday experience > to decide what exists and what does not, but science does not follow that, > and you’re a fool to do it. > > > > > I reject what Schrodinger dreamt up. > > And nobody cares what you accept or reject. What matters, and the ONLY > thing that matters in science is experimental verification, period, end of > story. > > > I posited that there exists one real physical description of our universe > > that can explain all the math developed so far. I used the Pyramid > > Technique to come up with such a physical description of our universe and > > the result is Model Mechanics. The paper in the following link shows how > > I developed the physical model of Model Mechanics: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015foxi.pdf > > > > The physical model of Model Mechanics not only is able to explain > > Schrodinger’s equations physically, but it also explain and unite all the > > forces of nature (including gravity). > > > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers > >>>>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math > >>>>> for gravity and relativity. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent > >>>>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its > >>>>>> inherent beauty. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkspqt$1j8i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467751 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon >>>>>>>>>> that idea as a guiding >>>>>>>>>> principle as it leads straight to >>>>>>>>>> scholastics, not science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful >>>>>>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have >>>>>>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with >>>>>>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical >>>>>>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. >>>>>> >>>>>> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, >>>>>> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a >>>>>> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t >>>>>> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. >>>>> >>>>> So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the >>>>> electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based >>>>> on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. >>>> >>>> Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in >>>> your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had >>>> established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that >>>> anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger >>>> embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a >>>> principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and >>>> found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he >>>> started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave >>>> equation that does the job. >>> >>> That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the >>> physical model of our universe to develop his math. >> >> Yes he did. It doesn’t have to be wholly new, independent of prior work. >> ALL new theories have built on the prior work of others. Newton did that >> and wrote about it. So did Copernicus. So did Planck. So did Bohr. So did >> Einstein. > > > No, he didn’t. He used the existing wave-model to develop his equation > and then he concluded that the electron become probability waves and > these probability waves reconstituted into a real electron. Ken, you don’t know. You haven’t read. Stop guessing. > These sound like the old added epicycles invented to explain the > observed orbit of planets around the sun. Ken, everything sounds like epicycles to you. Every theory in existence has been an extension or reworking of previous ideas. That’s how real science works. > > He failed to realize that there is a sound physical explanation Already have a sound physical explanation, validated by experiment. Recall that experimental validation is the ONLY accepted metric for scientific validity. > as follows: the electron is confined to the divergent geometry of the > E-Matrix and the source and the screen are in a state of absolute motion. > So the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on the state > of absolute motion of the source and the screen and the distance between > the source and the screen. > >> >>> He based his math on the existing wave model of his time. >> >> Yes, building in the work of others. Like is always done. >> >>> Since he was educated that there is no medium exists in space >> >> No he was not. > > Yes he was. > >> >>> to support his wave equations so he dreamt up the non-exiting probability >>> waves to explain his equations. >> >> You say probability waves are nonexisting but you can’t know whether they >> exist or not. The only way to assess whether a physical thing exists or not >> is to test a hypothesis in experiment. > > 1. probability waves do not exist. As I said, any idea that is validated by quantitative match to experiment is considered in science to be a good representation of reality. You blithering that they don’t exist counts for exactly nothing. You are pissing into the wind and nobody — nobody — cares what you think exists or doesn’t exist. > 2. the re-collapse of the probability waves into a real electron is fiction. > 3. the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on: the > divergency of the structure of the E-Matrix; the state of absolute motion > of the source and the screen; the distance of separation between the > source and the screen; and the velocity of the electron. > >> Since Schrödinger’s wave equation >> has so much experimental verification (doing what you do not do: >> calculating numbers from the theory and comparing them with measured >> numbers), then physicists rightfully say that probability waves work as a >> successful idea and are therefore real as real can be. This experimental >> verification is the ONLY way in science to assess whether a concept exists >> or not in nature. You want to rely on common sense and everyday experience >> to decide what exists and what does not, but science does not follow that, >> and you’re a fool to do it. >> >>> >>> I reject what Schrodinger dreamt up. >> >> And nobody cares what you accept or reject. What matters, and the ONLY >> thing that matters in science is experimental verification, period, end of >> story. >> >>> I posited that there exists one real physical description of our universe >>> that can explain all the math developed so far. I used the Pyramid >>> Technique to come up with such a physical description of our universe and >>> the result is Model Mechanics. The paper in the following link shows how >>> I developed the physical model of Model Mechanics: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015foxi.pdf >>> >>> The physical model of Model Mechanics not only is able to explain >>> Schrodinger’s equations physically, but it also explain and unite all the >>> forces of nature (including gravity). >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers >>>>>>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math >>>>>>> for gravity and relativity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent >>>>>>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its >>>>>>>> inherent beauty. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 21:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d800997c-3dbf-42ac-ad5d-5240fda4190d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467761 |
On Monday, 13 August 2018 22:31:30 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Already have a sound physical explanation, validated by experiment. Recall > that experimental validation is the ONLY accepted metric for scientific > validity. Not even wrong, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66682f43-45af-44ba-a2b1-aa3f1df58b92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467761 |
On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 4:31:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon > >>>>>>>>>> that idea as a guiding > >>>>>>>>>> principle as it leads straight to > >>>>>>>>>> scholastics, not science. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful > >>>>>>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have > >>>>>>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with > >>>>>>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > >>>>>>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > >>>>>> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > >>>>>> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t > >>>>>> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the > >>>>> electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based > >>>>> on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. > >>>> > >>>> Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in > >>>> your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had > >>>> established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that > >>>> anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger > >>>> embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a > >>>> principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and > >>>> found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he > >>>> started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave > >>>> equation that does the job. > >>> > >>> That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the > >>> physical model of our universe to develop his math. > >> > >> Yes he did. It doesn’t have to be wholly new, independent of prior work. > >> ALL new theories have built on the prior work of others. Newton did that > >> and wrote about it. So did Copernicus. So did Planck. So did Bohr. So did > >> Einstein. > > > > > > No, he didn’t. He used the existing wave-model to develop his equation > > and then he concluded that the electron become probability waves and > > these probability waves reconstituted into a real electron. > > Ken, you don’t know. You haven’t read. Stop guessing. It is you who don’t know. He developed the math before invented the probability waves to explain his math. > > > These sound like the old added epicycles invented to explain the > > observed orbit of planets around the sun. > > Ken, everything sounds like epicycles to you. Every theory in existence has > been an extension or reworking of previous ideas. That’s how real science > works. That’s why there is no new ideas for the last 100 years. > > > > > He failed to realize that there is a sound physical explanation > > Already have a sound physical explanation, validated by experiment. Recall > that experimental validation is the ONLY accepted metric for scientific > validity. NO, No, No.....probability waves and re-collapse into a real electron are not physical explanation. Its like saying that the fairy did it. > > > as follows: the electron is confined to the divergent geometry of the > > E-Matrix and the source and the screen are in a state of absolute motion. > > So the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on the state > > of absolute motion of the source and the screen and the distance between > > the source and the screen. > > > >> > >>> He based his math on the existing wave model of his time. > >> > >> Yes, building in the work of others. Like is always done. > >> > >>> Since he was educated that there is no medium exists in space > >> > >> No he was not. > > > > Yes he was. > > > >> > >>> to support his wave equations so he dreamt up the non-exiting probability > >>> waves to explain his equations. > >> > >> You say probability waves are nonexisting but you can’t know whether they > >> exist or not. The only way to assess whether a physical thing exists or not > >> is to test a hypothesis in experiment. > > > > 1. probability waves do not exist. > > As I said, any idea that is validated by quantitative match to experiment > is considered in science to be a good representation of reality. You > blithering that they don’t exist counts for exactly nothing. You are > pissing into the wind and nobody — nobody — cares what you think exists or > doesn’t exist. > > > > 2. the re-collapse of the probability waves into a real electron is fiction. > > 3. the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on: the > > divergency of the structure of the E-Matrix; the state of absolute motion > > of the source and the screen; the distance of separation between the > > source and the screen; and the velocity of the electron. > > > >> Since Schrödinger’s wave equation > >> has so much experimental verification (doing what you do not do: > >> calculating numbers from the theory and comparing them with measured > >> numbers), then physicists rightfully say that probability waves work as a > >> successful idea and are therefore real as real can be. This experimental > >> verification is the ONLY way in science to assess whether a concept exists > >> or not in nature. You want to rely on common sense and everyday experience > >> to decide what exists and what does not, but science does not follow that, > >> and you’re a fool to do it. > >> > >>> > >>> I reject what Schrodinger dreamt up. > >> > >> And nobody cares what you accept or reject. What matters, and the ONLY > >> thing that matters in science is experimental verification, period, end of > >> story. > >> > >>> I posited that there exists one real physical description of our universe > >>> that can explain all the math developed so far. I used the Pyramid > >>> Technique to come up with such a physical description of our universe and > >>> the result is Model Mechanics. The paper in the following link shows how > >>> I developed the physical model of Model Mechanics: > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015foxi.pdf > >>> > >>> The physical model of Model Mechanics not only is able to explain > >>> Schrodinger’s equations physically, but it also explain and unite all the > >>> forces of nature (including gravity). > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers > >>>>>>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math > >>>>>>> for gravity and relativity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent > >>>>>>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its > >>>>>>>> inherent beauty. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkv266$105b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467825 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 4:31:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon >>>>>>>>>>>> that idea as a guiding >>>>>>>>>>>> principle as it leads straight to >>>>>>>>>>>> scholastics, not science. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful >>>>>>>>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have >>>>>>>>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with >>>>>>>>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical >>>>>>>>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, >>>>>>>> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a >>>>>>>> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t >>>>>>>> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the >>>>>>> electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based >>>>>>> on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in >>>>>> your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had >>>>>> established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that >>>>>> anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger >>>>>> embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a >>>>>> principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and >>>>>> found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he >>>>>> started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave >>>>>> equation that does the job. >>>>> >>>>> That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the >>>>> physical model of our universe to develop his math. >>>> >>>> Yes he did. It doesn’t have to be wholly new, independent of prior work. >>>> ALL new theories have built on the prior work of others. Newton did that >>>> and wrote about it. So did Copernicus. So did Planck. So did Bohr. So did >>>> Einstein. >>> >>> >>> No, he didn’t. He used the existing wave-model to develop his equation >>> and then he concluded that the electron become probability waves and >>> these probability waves reconstituted into a real electron. >> >> Ken, you don’t know. You haven’t read. Stop guessing. > > It is you who don’t know. He developed the math before invented the > probability waves to explain his math. Bullshit. The history of the development is available for anyone to read. You making up history doesn’t count for anything, Ken, it never has. > >> >>> These sound like the old added epicycles invented to explain the >>> observed orbit of planets around the sun. >> >> Ken, everything sounds like epicycles to you. Every theory in existence has >> been an extension or reworking of previous ideas. That’s how real science >> works. > > That’s why there is no new ideas for the last 100 years. It’s the way science has worked since the 1600s, Ken. And it DOESN’T matter that you don’t like it. > >> >>> >>> He failed to realize that there is a sound physical explanation >> >> Already have a sound physical explanation, validated by experiment. Recall >> that experimental validation is the ONLY accepted metric for scientific >> validity. > > NO, No, No.....probability waves and re-collapse into a real electron are > not physical explanation. Its like saying that the fairy did it. Nobody says a probability wave collapses into a real electron, Ken. You can’t read. > >> >>> as follows: the electron is confined to the divergent geometry of the >>> E-Matrix and the source and the screen are in a state of absolute motion. >>> So the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on the state >>> of absolute motion of the source and the screen and the distance between >>> the source and the screen. >>> >>>> >>>>> He based his math on the existing wave model of his time. >>>> >>>> Yes, building in the work of others. Like is always done. >>>> >>>>> Since he was educated that there is no medium exists in space >>>> >>>> No he was not. >>> >>> Yes he was. >>> >>>> >>>>> to support his wave equations so he dreamt up the non-exiting probability >>>>> waves to explain his equations. >>>> >>>> You say probability waves are nonexisting but you can’t know whether they >>>> exist or not. The only way to assess whether a physical thing exists or not >>>> is to test a hypothesis in experiment. >>> >>> 1. probability waves do not exist. >> >> As I said, any idea that is validated by quantitative match to experiment >> is considered in science to be a good representation of reality. You >> blithering that they don’t exist counts for exactly nothing. You are >> pissing into the wind and nobody — nobody — cares what you think exists or >> doesn’t exist. >> >> >>> 2. the re-collapse of the probability waves into a real electron is fiction. >>> 3. the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on: the >>> divergency of the structure of the E-Matrix; the state of absolute motion >>> of the source and the screen; the distance of separation between the >>> source and the screen; and the velocity of the electron. >>> >>>> Since Schrödinger’s wave equation >>>> has so much experimental verification (doing what you do not do: >>>> calculating numbers from the theory and comparing them with measured >>>> numbers), then physicists rightfully say that probability waves work as a >>>> successful idea and are therefore real as real can be. This experimental >>>> verification is the ONLY way in science to assess whether a concept exists >>>> or not in nature. You want to rely on common sense and everyday experience >>>> to decide what exists and what does not, but science does not follow that, >>>> and you’re a fool to do it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I reject what Schrodinger dreamt up. >>>> >>>> And nobody cares what you accept or reject. What matters, and the ONLY >>>> thing that matters in science is experimental verification, period, end of >>>> story. >>>> >>>>> I posited that there exists one real physical description of our universe >>>>> that can explain all the math developed so far. I used the Pyramid >>>>> Technique to come up with such a physical description of our universe and >>>>> the result is Model Mechanics. The paper in the following link shows how >>>>> I developed the physical model of Model Mechanics: >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015foxi.pdf >>>>> >>>>> The physical model of Model Mechanics not only is able to explain >>>>> Schrodinger’s equations physically, but it also explain and unite all the >>>>> forces of nature (including gravity). >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers >>>>>>>>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math >>>>>>>>> for gravity and relativity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent >>>>>>>>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its >>>>>>>>>> inherent beauty. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2cba8beb-5da9-40bc-8515-c66a4d1d3901@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467829 |
On Tuesday, 14 August 2018 19:06:19 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 4:31:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon > >>>>>>>>>>>> that idea as a guiding > >>>>>>>>>>>> principle as it leads straight to > >>>>>>>>>>>> scholastics, not science. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful > >>>>>>>>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have > >>>>>>>>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with > >>>>>>>>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > >>>>>>>>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > >>>>>>>> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > >>>>>>>> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t > >>>>>>>> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the > >>>>>>> electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based > >>>>>>> on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in > >>>>>> your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had > >>>>>> established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that > >>>>>> anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger > >>>>>> embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a > >>>>>> principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and > >>>>>> found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he > >>>>>> started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave > >>>>>> equation that does the job. > >>>>> > >>>>> That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the > >>>>> physical model of our universe to develop his math. > >>>> > >>>> Yes he did. It doesn’t have to be wholly new, independent of prior work. > >>>> ALL new theories have built on the prior work of others. Newton did that > >>>> and wrote about it. So did Copernicus. So did Planck. So did Bohr. So did > >>>> Einstein. > >>> > >>> > >>> No, he didn’t. He used the existing wave-model to develop his equation > >>> and then he concluded that the electron become probability waves and > >>> these probability waves reconstituted into a real electron. > >> > >> Ken, you don’t know. You haven’t read. Stop guessing. > > > > It is you who don’t know. He developed the math before invented the > > probability waves to explain his math. > > Bullshit. The history of the development is available for anyone to read. > You making up history doesn’t count for anything, Ken, it never has. > > > > >> > >>> These sound like the old added epicycles invented to explain the > >>> observed orbit of planets around the sun. > >> > >> Ken, everything sounds like epicycles to you. Every theory in existence has > >> been an extension or reworking of previous ideas. That’s how real science > >> works. > > > > That’s why there is no new ideas for the last 100 years. > > It’s the way science has worked since the 1600s, Ken. And it DOESN’T matter > that you don’t like it. No, poor idiot. It' s NOT the way, and it doesn't matter that you like this primitive picture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbf192ec-ce40-4bb8-afda-f0474b30d89e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467829 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 4:31:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon > >>>>>>>>>>>> that idea as a guiding > >>>>>>>>>>>> principle as it leads straight to > >>>>>>>>>>>> scholastics, not science. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful > >>>>>>>>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have > >>>>>>>>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with > >>>>>>>>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical > >>>>>>>>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, > >>>>>>>> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a > >>>>>>>> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t > >>>>>>>> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the > >>>>>>> electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based > >>>>>>> on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in > >>>>>> your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had > >>>>>> established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that > >>>>>> anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger > >>>>>> embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a > >>>>>> principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and > >>>>>> found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he > >>>>>> started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave > >>>>>> equation that does the job. > >>>>> > >>>>> That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the > >>>>> physical model of our universe to develop his math. > >>>> > >>>> Yes he did. It doesn’t have to be wholly new, independent of prior work. > >>>> ALL new theories have built on the prior work of others. Newton did that > >>>> and wrote about it. So did Copernicus. So did Planck. So did Bohr. So did > >>>> Einstein. > >>> > >>> > >>> No, he didn’t. He used the existing wave-model to develop his equation > >>> and then he concluded that the electron become probability waves and > >>> these probability waves reconstituted into a real electron. > >> > >> Ken, you don’t know. You haven’t read. Stop guessing. > > > > It is you who don’t know. He developed the math before invented the > > probability waves to explain his math. > > Bullshit. The history of the development is available for anyone to read. > You making up history doesn’t count for anything, Ken, it never has. > > > > >> > >>> These sound like the old added epicycles invented to explain the > >>> observed orbit of planets around the sun. > >> > >> Ken, everything sounds like epicycles to you. Every theory in existence has > >> been an extension or reworking of previous ideas. That’s how real science > >> works. > > > > That’s why there is no new ideas for the last 100 years. > > It’s the way science has worked since the 1600s, Ken. And it DOESN’T matter > that you don’t like it. I changed the way how to do science. I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics and in a short time I came up with a new theory of the universe that includes the unification of all the forces (including gravity); a new theory of gravity; a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. > > > > >> > >>> > >>> He failed to realize that there is a sound physical explanation > >> > >> Already have a sound physical explanation, validated by experiment. Recall > >> that experimental validation is the ONLY accepted metric for scientific > >> validity. > > > > NO, No, No.....probability waves and re-collapse into a real electron are > > not physical explanation. Its like saying that the fairy did it. > > Nobody says a probability wave collapses into a real electron, Ken. You > can’t read. That’s what Schrodinger’s math says. He didn’t know how the electron arrive at a certain location on the screen so he said that the probability of the electron arrive at that location on the screen is dependent on the probability wave front of the electron arriving at that location. > > > > >> > >>> as follows: the electron is confined to the divergent geometry of the > >>> E-Matrix and the source and the screen are in a state of absolute motion. > >>> So the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on the state > >>> of absolute motion of the source and the screen and the distance between > >>> the source and the screen. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> He based his math on the existing wave model of his time. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, building in the work of others. Like is always done. > >>>> > >>>>> Since he was educated that there is no medium exists in space > >>>> > >>>> No he was not. > >>> > >>> Yes he was. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> to support his wave equations so he dreamt up the non-exiting probability > >>>>> waves to explain his equations. > >>>> > >>>> You say probability waves are nonexisting but you can’t know whether they > >>>> exist or not. The only way to assess whether a physical thing exists or not > >>>> is to test a hypothesis in experiment. > >>> > >>> 1. probability waves do not exist. > >> > >> As I said, any idea that is validated by quantitative match to experiment > >> is considered in science to be a good representation of reality. You > >> blithering that they don’t exist counts for exactly nothing. You are > >> pissing into the wind and nobody — nobody — cares what you think exists or > >> doesn’t exist. > >> > >> > >>> 2. the re-collapse of the probability waves into a real electron is fiction. > >>> 3. the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on: the > >>> divergency of the structure of the E-Matrix; the state of absolute motion > >>> of the source and the screen; the distance of separation between the > >>> source and the screen; and the velocity of the electron. > >>> > >>>> Since Schrödinger’s wave equation > >>>> has so much experimental verification (doing what you do not do: > >>>> calculating numbers from the theory and comparing them with measured > >>>> numbers), then physicists rightfully say that probability waves work as a > >>>> successful idea and are therefore real as real can be. This experimental > >>>> verification is the ONLY way in science to assess whether a concept exists > >>>> or not in nature. You want to rely on common sense and everyday experience > >>>> to decide what exists and what does not, but science does not follow that, > >>>> and you’re a fool to do it. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I reject what Schrodinger dreamt up. > >>>> > >>>> And nobody cares what you accept or reject. What matters, and the ONLY > >>>> thing that matters in science is experimental verification, period, end of > >>>> story. > >>>> > >>>>> I posited that there exists one real physical description of our universe > >>>>> that can explain all the math developed so far. I used the Pyramid > >>>>> Technique to come up with such a physical description of our universe and > >>>>> the result is Model Mechanics. The paper in the following link shows how > >>>>> I developed the physical model of Model Mechanics: > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015foxi.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> The physical model of Model Mechanics not only is able to explain > >>>>> Schrodinger’s equations physically, but it also explain and unite all the > >>>>> forces of nature (including gravity). > >>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers > >>>>>>>>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math > >>>>>>>>> for gravity and relativity. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent > >>>>>>>>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its > >>>>>>>>>> inherent beauty. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 15:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b742606$0$15486$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #467901 |
kenseto wrote: ... > I changed the way how to do science. I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics and in a short time I came up with a new theory of the universe that includes the unification of all the forces (including gravity); a new theory of gravity; a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. Ken this is highly delusional, to say the least... You couldn't even solve the simpliest of high school physics problems. The fact that the pile of nonsense you call a "theory" has NEVER convinced ANYONE should ring a bell in your brain. Of course it won't, you are a psychotic crank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0394db80-3a2b-4395-8cb5-5e9c9cd47f61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467902 |
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:09:29 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto wrote: > ... > > I changed the way how to do science. I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics and in a short time I came up with a new theory of the universe that includes the unification of all the forces (including gravity); a new theory of gravity; a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. > > Ken this is highly delusional, to say the least... You couldn't even > solve the simpliest of high school physics problems. > > The fact that the pile of nonsense you call a "theory" has NEVER > convinced ANYONE should ring a bell in your brain. Of course it > won't, you are a psychotic crank. Moron....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl43sh$gls$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468006 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:09:29 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> ... >>> I changed the way how to do science. I invented the Pyramid Technique >>> for doing physics and in a short time I came up with a new theory of >>> the universe that includes the unification of all the forces (including >>> gravity); a new theory of gravity; a new theory of relativity that is >>> devoid of paradoxes. >> >> Ken this is highly delusional, to say the least... You couldn't even >> solve the simpliest of high school physics problems. >> >> The fact that the pile of nonsense you call a "theory" has NEVER >> convinced ANYONE should ring a bell in your brain. Of course it >> won't, you are a psychotic crank. > > Moron.... > When you say that, it sounds like a reflex. It’s something you say when you’re ashamed. People who react this way with a word like “moron” are giving the appearance of sayin it to someone else when they’re really saying it to themselves. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 13:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl19b7$6ea$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467901 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 4:31:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:45:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In principle they cannot. Sorry but you simply have to abandon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that idea as a guiding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle as it leads straight to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scholastics, not science. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do I have to abandon that idea when it generated a successful >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of Model Mechanics? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You do not have a theory, much less a successful theory, because you have >>>>>>>>>>>> not shown it capable of generating numbers that may be compared with >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment. This is a requirement of any physical theory. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, the function of Model Mechanics is to provide real physical >>>>>>>>>>> processes for all the successful math developed so far. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Science doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t start with the math and say, ok, >>>>>>>>>> here is what’s going in behind the scenes of the math. One starts with a >>>>>>>>>> physical explanation and then develops the math from that. You haven’t >>>>>>>>>> developed the math from your ideas and so you don’t have a physical theory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you think that Schrodinger dreamt up the probability wave for the >>>>>>>>> electron and then sat down and developed his Schrodinger equations based >>>>>>>>> on the the existence of probability waves? I don’t think so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, if you chose to read something rather than just inventing history in >>>>>>>> your head, you’d find that’s pretty close to what he did. De Broglie had >>>>>>>> established the wave nature of particles, and Debye had suggested that >>>>>>>> anything conceived of as waves should obey a wave equation. So Schrödinger >>>>>>>> embarked, starting with a classical plane wave description, applying a >>>>>>>> principle of least action from optics and mechanics (a la Hamiltonian), and >>>>>>>> found a diffusion equation based on conservation of energy. So yes, he >>>>>>>> started with a wave description of particles, and then found the wave >>>>>>>> equation that does the job. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s the problem: Schrodinger didn’t come up with a new picture of the >>>>>>> physical model of our universe to develop his math. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes he did. It doesn’t have to be wholly new, independent of prior work. >>>>>> ALL new theories have built on the prior work of others. Newton did that >>>>>> and wrote about it. So did Copernicus. So did Planck. So did Bohr. So did >>>>>> Einstein. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, he didn’t. He used the existing wave-model to develop his equation >>>>> and then he concluded that the electron become probability waves and >>>>> these probability waves reconstituted into a real electron. >>>> >>>> Ken, you don’t know. You haven’t read. Stop guessing. >>> >>> It is you who don’t know. He developed the math before invented the >>> probability waves to explain his math. >> >> Bullshit. The history of the development is available for anyone to read. >> You making up history doesn’t count for anything, Ken, it never has. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> These sound like the old added epicycles invented to explain the >>>>> observed orbit of planets around the sun. >>>> >>>> Ken, everything sounds like epicycles to you. Every theory in existence has >>>> been an extension or reworking of previous ideas. That’s how real science >>>> works. >>> >>> That’s why there is no new ideas for the last 100 years. >> >> It’s the way science has worked since the 1600s, Ken. And it DOESN’T matter >> that you don’t like it. > > I changed the way how to do science. And that’s nuts. All you’ve done is invented a fantasy for you and you alone. It’s a pretend world to make you happy. You cannot claim to change science until others adopt your way, and you’ve convinced no one. You can say you don’t care if anyone else follows suit. And that’s true because all you care about is you living in your fantasy. > I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics and in a short time I > came up with a new theory of the universe that includes the unification > of all the forces (including gravity); a new theory of gravity; a new > theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> He failed to realize that there is a sound physical explanation >>>> >>>> Already have a sound physical explanation, validated by experiment. Recall >>>> that experimental validation is the ONLY accepted metric for scientific >>>> validity. >>> >>> NO, No, No.....probability waves and re-collapse into a real electron are >>> not physical explanation. Its like saying that the fairy did it. >> >> Nobody says a probability wave collapses into a real electron, Ken. You >> can’t read. > > That’s what Schrodinger’s math says. Bullshit. And Ken, you’re the last person on earth to claim to say what math says, because you can’t follow 4th grade math. You are pretending, and everyone — and I mean everyone, your family included — knows it. > He didn’t know how the electron arrive at a certain location on the > screen so he said that the probability of the electron arrive at that > location on the screen is dependent on the probability wave front of the > electron arriving at that location. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> as follows: the electron is confined to the divergent geometry of the >>>>> E-Matrix and the source and the screen are in a state of absolute motion. >>>>> So the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on the state >>>>> of absolute motion of the source and the screen and the distance between >>>>> the source and the screen. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> He based his math on the existing wave model of his time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, building in the work of others. Like is always done. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since he was educated that there is no medium exists in space >>>>>> >>>>>> No he was not. >>>>> >>>>> Yes he was. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> to support his wave equations so he dreamt up the non-exiting probability >>>>>>> waves to explain his equations. >>>>>> >>>>>> You say probability waves are nonexisting but you can’t know whether they >>>>>> exist or not. The only way to assess whether a physical thing exists or not >>>>>> is to test a hypothesis in experiment. >>>>> >>>>> 1. probability waves do not exist. >>>> >>>> As I said, any idea that is validated by quantitative match to experiment >>>> is considered in science to be a good representation of reality. You >>>> blithering that they don’t exist counts for exactly nothing. You are >>>> pissing into the wind and nobody — nobody — cares what you think exists or >>>> doesn’t exist. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2. the re-collapse of the probability waves into a real electron is fiction. >>>>> 3. the location of the electron on the screen is dependent on: the >>>>> divergency of the structure of the E-Matrix; the state of absolute motion >>>>> of the source and the screen; the distance of separation between the >>>>> source and the screen; and the velocity of the electron. >>>>> >>>>>> Since Schrödinger’s wave equation >>>>>> has so much experimental verification (doing what you do not do: >>>>>> calculating numbers from the theory and comparing them with measured >>>>>> numbers), then physicists rightfully say that probability waves work as a >>>>>> successful idea and are therefore real as real can be. This experimental >>>>>> verification is the ONLY way in science to assess whether a concept exists >>>>>> or not in nature. You want to rely on common sense and everyday experience >>>>>> to decide what exists and what does not, but science does not follow that, >>>>>> and you’re a fool to do it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I reject what Schrodinger dreamt up. >>>>>> >>>>>> And nobody cares what you accept or reject. What matters, and the ONLY >>>>>> thing that matters in science is experimental verification, period, end of >>>>>> story. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I posited that there exists one real physical description of our universe >>>>>>> that can explain all the math developed so far. I used the Pyramid >>>>>>> Technique to come up with such a physical description of our universe and >>>>>>> the result is Model Mechanics. The paper in the following link shows how >>>>>>> I developed the physical model of Model Mechanics: >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015foxi.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The physical model of Model Mechanics not only is able to explain >>>>>>> Schrodinger’s equations physically, but it also explain and unite all the >>>>>>> forces of nature (including gravity). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So that means that all the numbers generated by current math are numbers >>>>>>>>>>> for Model Mechanics. In addition, Model Mechanics gives rise to new math >>>>>>>>>>> for gravity and relativity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> At best, you may claim to have founded a religion with one single adherent >>>>>>>>>>>> who finds himself awestruck by what this single adherent perceives as its >>>>>>>>>>>> inherent beauty. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web