Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377915

Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks !

Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
Date 2016-03-04 16:07 -0800
References (4 earlier) <483a226f-207e-4ff9-b38b-fd5e4ee06e63@googlegroups.com> <49KdnQEUzKFK_kXLnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> <0a0a1b0d-37ad-4cb4-b4f3-3f0f549d951a@googlegroups.com> <BZ6dnYEYaqALJkXLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <b380509d-44bf-4a5b-a35c-912da15d08f6@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID <7d910686-d413-40cd-9667-bdbd6fffd826@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks !
From paparios <paparios@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

El viernes, 4 de marzo de 2016, 20:46:27 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato  escribió:
> El jueves, 3 de marzo de 2016, 17:32:56 (UTC-5), tjrob137  escribió:
> > On 3/3/16 3/3/16   1:58 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > > El jueves, 3 de marzo de 2016, 11:18:33 (UTC-5), tjrob137  escribió:
> > >> On 3/2/16 3/2/16   6:57 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > >>> El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 14:06:40 (UTC-5), tjrob137  escribió:
> > >>>> You seem to think that "moving clocks run slow" and "higher clocks run
> > >>>> fast" -- these sound bites are WRONG (even though all too many
> > >>>> elementary books use them).
> > >>>>
> > >>> Not only in the elementary books, but also 1905 Einstein says (in his
> > >>> June 30 first Relativity paper at the end of Section 4) that a "clock at
> > >>> the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely
> > >>> similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical
> > >>> conditions";
> > >>
> > >> Yes. Einstein got it wrong back in 1905, too. The full ramifications of SR
> > >> had not yet been worked out or understood. By the time he wrote about GR,
> > >> in 1915, he knew better.
> > >>
> > > What do you say that 1905 Einstein get wrong?
> > 
> > The notion that "moving clocks run slow", i.e. a clock on the equator goes more
> > slowly than one at the pole.
> >
> But evidently you take only part of the phrase out of its right context "under
> otherwise identical conditions". Put the clock at a pole sufficiently high to 
> be at the same gravitational potential condition than the one at the equator. 
> 1905 Einstein takes already into account that besides velocity, other still 
> unknown conditions can alter the running of a clock.
>  
> > This is partly simple English, and partly basic GR. In English, when one says "a
> > clock", one is referring to the clock ONLY, and not anything else (e.g. some
> > observer in a different inertial frame, or located far away). It is also basic
> > GR: the elapsed proper time of a clock is computed by integrating the metric
> > over its path; a good clock NECESSARILY advances its indicated time by one
> > second for every second of its elapsed proper time (necessarily, because this is
> > what we mean by "clock").
> >
> > But as I said, in 1905 all this had not yet been understood, and Einstein got it
> > wrong.
> >
> You are right, that is what "clock" means in SR-GR, but not in 1905 Relativity (denoted by me as 1905R), as you are now accepting.
> 
> To know what "time" and "clock" mean in 1905R, you must  read Section 1 of the June 30 paper, resumed in the following phrase (almost at the end):
> 
> [ The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. ]
> 
> As you can see, a "clock ONLY" has no sense at all in 1905R, because the time of an event is DEFINED by what is showing simultaneously ALL the synchronized  virtual clocks, one in each stationary space points of the corresponding stationary system.
> 
> The observation of the time, receiving signals in a distant place emitted from the one in which the event occur, is very explicitly  rejected by 1905 Einstein just before the exposition of his time definition. 
>  
> > 
> > > That a "clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
> > > than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise
> > > identical conditions" is only a particular case of the more general "moving
> > > clocks run slow", that jointly with his 1915 GR prediction "higher clocks run
> > > fast" (BOTH used in the successful design of the frequency divider needed to
> > > synchronize ALL GPS clocks at the same selected  operative 10.23 MHz
> > > frequency), find HUGE experimental support since the launching of the first
> > > GPS satellite and the continuous very successful  operation of the system by
> > > several decades until our days.
> > 
> > You again get it wrong. There is indeed huge support for SIGNALS from a moving 
> > clock arriving slower than ticks from an identical but non-moving clock; ditto 
> > for SIGNALS from a lower-gravitational-potential clock arriving slower than 
> > ticks of an identical but higher clock.
> > 
> > There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER than these clocks actually tick slower. Indeed 
> > when one applies the standard definition of the second (9,192,631,770 cycles of 
> > the Cs133 hyperfine transition), it is QUITE CLEAR that a co-located and 
> > co-moving standard would measure each clock ticking at its usual rate 
> > (regardless of how it might be moving or where it might be located).
> > 
> >      For some satellites, a Cs standard is carried in the satellite.
> > 
> > That is, this is no "change" in the clocks or their tick rate, this is a change 
> > in the SIGNAL ARRIVAL RATE measured by the receiver.
> > 
> > 	In both SR and GR, all types of "clock redshift/blueshift" are
> > 	simply geometrical projections. Ditto for "time dilation" and
> > 	"length contraction". All are computed using the same algorithm.
> >
> Very strong confirmed experimentally since the first GPS satellite launching,
> velocity and gravitational potential are two different conditions that alter 
> the running frequency of a clock (the first decreasing and the second 
> increasing), I gave you already all the relevant information about it.
> 
> In the case of the GPS, the net effect on a satellite clock (without 
> relativistic correction and compared with a reference clock in the ground 
> Earth's geoid) is about +38 = +45-7 microseconds/day, +45 the gravitational and 
> -7 the velocity effect.
> 
> The goal of the relativistic correction is reduce to 0 the net effect in all 
> GPS clocks, obtaining for all them the 1905 Einstein synchronization at the 
> selected frequency of 10.23 MHz (that have reference clocks in the Earth's 
> geoid).
> 
> Please, put attention to the fact that in the synchronized operative GPS does 
> NOT exist at all any transmitted or received  SIGNAL with the frequency  10.23 
> MHz (or near to it) corresponding to the 1905 Einstein defined time of the GPS 
> ECI. I viewed ALL the GPS Interface Specification IS-GPS-200H , page by page, 
> giving you already the more relevant paragraph (the one I suspect that you 
> misunderstand).
> 
> About all your references of clocks emitting SIGNALS with its frequencies to be 
> observed in distant places, I remember you that in the last paragraph of my 
> second comment in this post I left constancy of the 1905 Einstein initial 
> rejection to all this type of time observations not compatible with 1905 Einstein time definition. 
>  
> > 
> > > By the way, do not notice you that an unmodified Cs clock inside a GPS
> > > satellite "displaying time in its locally-inertial rest frame" (a prediction
> > > of 1915 GR) plays no role at all in the operative GPS ECI system?
> > 
> > Not really. The fact that the Cs oscillator ticks at its usual rate 
> > (9,192,631,770 Hz) is ESSENTIAL for the operation of the GPS; they simply use a 
> > non-standard divider in the "clock" that is calculated precisely so that SIGNALS 
> > FROM THE SATELLITE arrive on earth's geoid with the correct rate. The GPS simply 
> > does not care about the rate measured in the satellite, as long as the SIGNALS 
> > arriving on the geoid have the correct rate.
> >
> You continue referring to SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE that do not exist at all, confusing the carrier frequencies (L1 and L2) of the communication channels (that are NOT data) with the different 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency that always have ALL the operative GPS clocks, including the ones inside the satellites that an astronaut in that place can verify. 
> > 
> > > It is not strange for you that Euclidean geometry and Newtonian equations are
> > > so successful in the computation of time and position in the GPS receptors?
> > 
> > Not strange at all. But for this to happen it is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that a) 
> > moving clock tick at their usual rate (and ditto for higher-altitude clocks), 
> > and b) NM and EG are good approximations to GR near earth.
> >
> You continue thinking (in contradiction with the already HUGE experimental knowledge in the GPS) that the Cs clock into the operative satellite (at a velocity and gravitational potential conditions different from the ones he had at ground before the launching), continue having the same frequency.
>  
> I will repeat for you the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS.
> 
> In the first GPS launching (without correction). 
> 
> Frequency at ground: 10.23 MHz; Frequency in orbit: GREATER than 10.23 MHz by +442.5 parts in 10E12.
> 
> In all the other launching until today (with more recent correction).
> Frequency at ground: 10.299999954326 MHz; Frequency in orbit: 10.230000000000 MHz .
> 

You should read the Offical GPS Documentation before writting nonsense. For instance, see http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf

In that document see page 13, section 3.3.1.1, where the frequency plan is explained:

"For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vb).  For GPS III and subsequent satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained 
within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vc).  The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV.  The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz.  
The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.  The clock rates are offset by ∆f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P
- code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆f = -4.5674E-3 Hz.  This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz.  The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) 
shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively."

So you see you have your numbers in the wrong locations.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800
  Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:59 +0800
  Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 03:05 -0800
    Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:29 +0800
      Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 04:14 -0800
        Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 20:35 +0800
          Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:17 -0800
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 21:23 +0800
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 06:34 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:38 +0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:30 +0100
    Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:34 -0800
  Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 -0800
    Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:19 -0800
    Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800
      Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-26 13:06 -0600
        Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:21 +0000
          Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 19:33 +1100
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 08:52 +0000
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 12:22 +0100
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-28 11:04 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 22:39 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:33 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:53 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:55 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:09 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:14 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:37 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:44 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:59 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-29 17:28 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:41 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:27 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 17:31 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:59 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:58 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:19 -0800
        Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 11:29 -0800
        Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:35 +0100
          Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:04 -0800
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 22:45 -0800
        Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:56 -0800
          Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 11:25 +0100
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 02:59 -0800
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 03:32 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 03:58 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:31 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 04:44 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:38 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 13:03 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:00 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:27 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:15 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:46 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:03 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:05 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 06:20 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:56 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:25 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:43 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 19:39 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:53 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 23:13 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:47 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:14 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:10 -0800
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 21:50 +0100
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 22:12 +0100
        Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:58 -0800
          Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 21:12 -0800
          Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-01 10:24 -0600
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 17:38 +0100
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:28 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:57 -0800
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:51 +0000
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:04 -0800
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 18:54 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 09:22 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:27 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-02 20:01 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:13 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:17 +1100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:44 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-05 13:18 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 18:20 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 23:32 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:43 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-08 11:29 +0100
                Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0100
                Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:21 +1100
                Re: Free energy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-03 23:41 +0100
                Re: Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
                Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:01 -0600
                Re: Free energy mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 06:59 -0800
                Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:11 -0600
                Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:51 +0000
                Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0800
                Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:12 -0600
                Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:33 +0000
                Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:40 +0000
                Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:27 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 09:22 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:11 +0100
        Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:57 -0800
          Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 10:18 -0600
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 17:16 +0000
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-03 19:41 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:22 +1100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 22:49 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:09 +0100
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:48 -0800
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:02 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:20 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:48 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 09:00 -0800
            Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0800
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:59 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 22:42 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:58 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0800
              Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 16:32 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:46 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:59 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 01:31 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:54 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:52 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 14:44 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:40 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:07 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 05:33 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:18 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:40 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 16:34 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:22 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 17:23 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:19 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:37 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:48 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:58 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-07 23:01 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:04 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:37 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:29 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:00 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 10:31 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 19:07 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:13 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-09 01:48 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:05 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:08 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:26 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:03 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:04 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:50 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-09 17:10 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:00 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 15:23 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:32 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:03 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 23:06 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-14 04:15 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:58 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:34 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:59 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 19:00 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:09 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 22:47 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 02:23 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 02:44 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:41 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:22 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:38 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:12 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:38 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:20 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 15:53 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:51 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:25 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 19:37 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:27 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 20:25 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 22:48 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:58 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:03 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:53 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:58 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 15:00 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:14 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 06:18 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:53 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:02 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:30 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:01 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 17:06 -0400
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 21:08 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 22:18 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 21:02 -0400
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:22 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 11:11 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:07 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-16 19:06 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:47 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:59 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-20 22:48 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:27 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:20 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 07:32 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:37 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:55 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:11 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 11:52 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:58 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 18:08 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:04 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 15:51 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:00 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 02:23 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:40 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:50 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:34 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 07:46 -0700
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-22 11:20 -0500
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 18:32 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-08 11:11 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:41 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:37 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 20:33 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:45 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 23:02 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 08:57 -0600
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:15 +0000
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:09 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 08:31 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:04 +0100
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:38 -0800
                Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100

csiph-web