Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391266
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: My instantaneous point of view |
| Date | 2016-08-31 11:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2mq6qFt6hlU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <15be525b-f53b-4829-927d-b088a3af4d84@googlegroups.com> <e2faiqF4fgvU1@mid.individual.net> <bce5df17-7d48-4cae-86c5-1416cec8cff2@googlegroups.com> <e2kis6Fcgm1U1@mid.individual.net> <af69b81c-e233-4287-bcee-dcc87047c8ec@googlegroups.com> |
On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM >>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about two seconds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the observation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen on the Moon, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was initially covered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a laser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large screen was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncovered. Do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be observed before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the returning laser pulse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been trying to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For you to observe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons representing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the photons in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former would have to travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than the latter. Why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they travel faster? How >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they know that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a machine to measure "photons" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which the very nature of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its' meaning is traveling. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't think like this. Think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why the object is large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is and what makes this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away to the screen of photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't do this. Instead, compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the image of the screen- the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that the satellite sends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to spatially be able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell a time difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here... you can like it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure... I refuse to believe that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 22 minutes of the six month >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variation of occultation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main moons have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. I believe the 22 minutes means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else. Now, I know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 minutes means to you, but do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple explanation for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's observed, and is entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with what we know about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. It seems bizarre in the extreme >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you to want to believe that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause is something else when we clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what's happening. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during a magicians performance and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magician is like nature. When the woman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be sawed in half- you believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman is really being sawed in half- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the apparently sawn-in-half woman is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still alive suggests that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the model of light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth- like the one's in famous >>>>>>>>>>>>> toothed-wheel experiments- placed on mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>> tops to derive a measurable quantity which >>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that screens can be observed BEFORE >>>>>>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment. Given its conflict with the well >>>>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no one else is >>>>>>>>>>>> going to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is >>>>>>>>>>> evidence out there like the 1950's naval >>>>>>>>>>> experiments where sight triangulation occurred >>>>>>>>>>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main >>>>>>>>>>> problem is how science interprets the results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which >>>>>>>>>> people cannot check, why not provide links to >>>>>>>>>> official documents? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time >>>>>>>>> and I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's >>>>>>>>> very difficult to talk about a subject that nobody >>>>>>>>> wants to talk about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to >>>>>>>> have become aware of them somehow. If there are no >>>>>>>> official documents to refer to, how do you know that >>>>>>>> it's not just something someone overheard in a pub? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you >>>>>>> are a person of this Earth- you have as much right to >>>>>>> this reality as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you >>>>>>> think it must be proved? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly >>>>>> I can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything >>>>>> is impossible. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you >>>>>> were personally involved, and not just imagining it, you >>>>>> must have come across information about them somehow. Why >>>>>> not provide details to facilitate some independent >>>>>> verification, as well as allowing an opportunity to check >>>>>> your interpretation of the results. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you >>>>> would do a better job considering that you think highly of >>>>> yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do >>>>> this considering my only asset is my mind and its' >>>>> investigative powers. I do not have millions or influence to >>>>> perform this experiment. You really can't access the info >>>>> concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space >>>>> velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave >>>>> faster results than the radar? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I can't find it. >>>> >>>> You say it exists - point to it. >>>> >>>> Sylvia >>> >>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts >>> to determine the velocity of light A qualifying paper submitted >>> to the graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements >>> for the degree of master in science in education Department of >>> education and physical science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson >>> Institution: northern Illinois university, 1959 under the >>> subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": >>> >>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the successful >>> conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some >>> situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a >>> radar range could be compared with a range determined by visual >>> methods, a ship sighting on a land object for example, it was >>> often found that the radar range was SHORT. This was usually >>> blamed on miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. Since a >>> radar signal is a form of electromagnetic radiation traveling at >>> the speed of light, it also raised the question of whether the >>> speed of light as then understood was accurate. >>> >>> It was not until after the war that an answer to the question >>> could be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a >>> curious increase in the measured velocity. These determinations >>> appear to reopen the question of the true value of c." >>> >> >> That seems to be an example of your reading between the lines, but >> not reading the lines themselves. >> >> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not constant, >> merely that at the time it appeared that the accepted value was not >> correct. >> >> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just things >> like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the known >> distance on land between two objects which forms one side of a >> triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, >> being the distance of the ship from the objects. >> >> There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. >> >> Sylvia. > > continuing from the same article: > > "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using two > radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and the Soren > system in the United states, to check their accuracy and to study > their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by > radar were compared with the values obtained by normal sight > triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies indicated a higher > free space value." > Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed of light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there to indicate anything other than a problem with the previous measurements. In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not affected by the speed of light. There's no new physics here. Sylvia. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-20 13:34 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-20 13:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-21 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 16:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 11:31 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 12:17 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 19:48 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 13:21 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 14:29 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:30 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:39 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 15:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 08:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-24 12:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-24 18:52 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-25 16:02 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 15:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 11:51 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:02 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:05 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:43 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:58 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:06 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:46 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:47 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 12:59 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 21:11 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 15:19 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 14:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 21:32 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 15:11 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 18:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 11:28 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:36 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 12:57 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 11:49 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 13:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 19:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 14:00 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:18 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 11:33 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-01 08:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 04:57 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 17:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:05 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:56 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 20:55 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 21:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 21:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 22:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 06:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-21 23:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:22 -0700
csiph-web