sci.physics.relativity

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: Ok guys. Lets put our heads together.
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Ok guys. Lets put our heads together.
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Mass dilation
  • From: Hayek
• Faster than c
  • From: Spirit of Truth
• Re: Mass dilation
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Mass dilation
  • From: bill
• Re: IaSNe observations
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: "Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?"
  • From: Obama Insane
• Re: Ajay Sharma kicked around
  • From: Dono
• Re: Ajay Sharma kicked around
  • From: drmoshekurz
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: glird
• Re: Ok guys. Lets put our heads together.
  • From: kenseto
• Re: velocity
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: velocity
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Ok guys. Lets put our heads together.
  • From: Josef Matz
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: Ok guys. Lets put our heads together.
  • From: Y
• Re: velocity
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: There are two kinds of spaces and time:
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: velocity
  • From: Greg Neill
• Re: New theory - "superpoints"
  • From: mogi77
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: Golden Ratios - The Giant Proof they can't refuse
  • From: Y
• Re: Mass dilation
  • From: bill
• Golden Ratios - The Giant Proof they can't refuse
  • From: Monocle
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: PiBoy
• Re: Mass dilation
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: New theory - "superpoints"
  • From: Thomas Heger
• Re: Is speed of sound higher then the speed of light???
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Physical structure that photon
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: IaSNe observations
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: shuba
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: glird
• Re: ABOUT THE LT
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: velocity
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: The speed of gravity revisited
  • From: Roger Shore
• Re: velocity
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: velocity
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: glird
• "The Scarcity of Life Bearing Planets"
  • From: Anig
• Re: Answer to Androcles's question on Einstein's Tau function
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Answer to Androcles's question on Einstein's Tau function
  • From: blackhead
• structured spacetime
  • From: Thomas Heger
• Re: New theory - "superpoints"
  • From: mogi77
• Re: New theory - "superpoints"
  • From: gazeta
• Re: Answer to Androcles's question on Einstein's Tau function
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: harry
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: hanerim
• Re: velocity
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: velocity
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: velocity
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: velocity
  • From: PD
• Re: velocity
  • From: PD
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Answer to Androcles's question on Einstein's Tau function
  • From: blackhead
• Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
  • From: Don Stockbauer
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: eio
• Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Greg Neill
• Re: velocity
  • From: Greg Neill
• Re: velocity
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: velocity
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: eio
• Re: velocity
  • From: PD
• Re: velocity
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: velocity
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: New theory - "superpoints"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why time travel seems to be very real ...
  • From: Y
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: Androcles
• Re: velocity
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: glird
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: glird
• Re: velocity
  • From: Greg Neill
• Re: velocity
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Help with paper on relativity
  • From: marcofuics
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: harry
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: harry
• "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
  • From: Anig
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Help with paper on relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: harry
• Re: Is this Correct
  • From: mathkills
• Help with paper on relativity
  • From: blackhead
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: Androcles
• Light quanta and consciousness / subconsciousness.
  • From: socratus
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: harry
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: How does a physicist measure the area of a real circle ?
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Is this Correct
  • From: Spirit of Truth
• Re: Instantaneous is a lot "Faster" Than C!
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: Light - a misunderstood phenomena since 1905
  • From: Igor
• Re: 100 years of time dilation missed !!!
  • From: Hayek
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• What holds matter clustered into galaxies?
  • From: Tabernacle
• Re: How does a physicist measure the area of a real circle ?
  • From: Tabernacle
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The tipping point: x'/(c-v) = 1/(c-v).
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• hey guys. . .
  • From: Y
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: rvallshg
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: Roger Shore
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dono
• Re: How does a physicist measure the area of a real circle ?
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Dono
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Dono
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: cosmology
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Relativity lacks mathematical beauty because it has no rotation in it !!!
  • From: Dono
• Re: cosmology
  • From: dlzc
• Re: test
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: 100 years of time dilation missed !!!
  • From: Tabernacle
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: Tabernacle
• Re: 100 years of time dilation missed !!!
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• 100 years of time dilation missed !!!
  • From: Tabernacle
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
  • From: NoEinstein
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: "Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: harry
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: harry
• Re: Unified field theory in an irrational nutshell. FUN FUN FUN
  • From: Y
• Re: Unified field theory in an irrational nutshell. FUN FUN FUN
  • From: Y
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: glird
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dono
• "Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
  • From: Anig
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: harry
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: Androcles
• The three theories in physics. Which is correct?
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: How does a physicist measure the area of a real circle ?
  • From: Igor
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Androcles
• Unified field theory in an irrational nutshell. FUN FUN FUN
  • From: Y
• Re: There are two kinds of spaces and time:
  • From: Androcles
• Re: There are two kinds of spaces and time:
  • From: harry
• Re: Einstien Repost (No Links)
  • From: Dono
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: There are two kinds of spaces and time:
  • From: Sue...
• Re: There are two kinds of spaces and time:
  • From: Sue...
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Androcles
• There are two kinds of spaces and time:
  • From: socratus
• Re: How does a physicist measure the area of a real circle ?
  • From: Y
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: How does a physicist measure the area of a real circle ?
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: Relativity lacks mathematical beauty because it has no rotation in it !!!
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: 100 years and still no mathematical beauty
  • From: Tabernacle
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Gravity - Geo Synchronious orbit etc.
  • From: Y
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Dono
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Gravity - Geo Synchronious orbit etc.
  • From: Y
• Re: Time jumps (geometric) v/s Time Travel (arithmetic) Information compression on a chip (exponential)
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Martin Hogbin
• Time jumps (geometric) v/s Time Travel (arithmetic) Information compression on a chip (exponential)
  • From: erach27@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: The vortex universe
  • From: Androcles
• The vortex universe
  • From: thomheg
• Re: Revisit the undeniable precision of Tom Roberts' words
  • From: Joe S. Tyar or B.Bean
• Re: Revisit the undeniable precision of Tom Roberts' words
  • From: Tom Roberts
• compost messages
  • From: cmunhollon
• Einstien Repost (No Links)
  • From: cmunhollon
• Einstien
  • From: cmunhollon
• Re: Revisit the undeniable precision of Tom Roberts' words
  • From: Androcles
• Revisit the undeniable precision of Tom Roberts' words
  • From: Joe S. Tyar or B.Bean
• Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
  • From: glird
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Martin Hogbin
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
  • From: Emit
• Physics and Consciousness.
  • From: socratus
• Mere atom-fysik i folkeskolen (?)
  • From: Josh Satan
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Galaxies disk clustering
  • From: jmfbahciv
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Unifying the Fields.
  • From: Y
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Franklin Theory; was Re: Physicist says Higgs Boson to be found by 2010!
  • From: xxein
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
  • From: Androcles
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: harry
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Y
• Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: My opinion about “ black hole”
  • From: socratus
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Unifying the Fields.
  • From: Y
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• "The Flaw in High Energy Physics"
  • From: Emit
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: John Kennaugh
• My opinion about “ black hole”
  • From: socratus
• <> Beautiful Music based on Scientific Theories <>
  • From: Rexsy
• Re: Interchangeability between Energy, Light and Matter.
  • From: Y
• Re: remembering the future
  • From: babaluyee
• Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: remembering the future
  • From: babaluyee
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: PiBoy
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Thomas Heger
• Re: test
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Hayek
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: xxein
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: "The Limitations of Mathematics in Physics"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Sue...
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: test
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: "The Limitations of Mathematics in Physics"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: test
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: test
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: "The Limitations of Mathematics in Physics"
  • From: glird
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Hayek
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Hayek
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Hayek
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: The speed of gravity revisited
  • From: Tom Van Flandern
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Reality
  • From: PD
• Re: test
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: PD
• Re: Unifying the Fields.
  • From: Y
• Re: Unifying the Fields.
  • From: Y
• Re: "The Limitations of Mathematics in Physics"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: "The Limitations of Mathematics in Physics"
  • From: glird
• Unifying the Fields.
  • From: Y
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Reality
  • From: Androcles
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Reality
  • From: glird
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• "Communicating at Translight Velocities"
  • From: Emit
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Are you Afraid of mathematics
  • From: Math
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Y
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Igor
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: socratus
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Igor
• Re: What It’s Like After Death: The New Paradigm Revelations
  • From: sufigeorge
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Relativity
  • From: shuba
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: socratus
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: THE UNIVERSE-MECHANICS
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Google extends China censoring to us here?
  • From: fitz
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Y
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Y
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Y
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Y
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Y
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Y
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: A Flower for Einstein
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: A Flower for Einstein
  • From: glird
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: SolomonW
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Relativity
  • From: glird
• "The Limitations of Mathematics in Physics"
  • From: Emit
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Androcles
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Time Flow
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Time Flow
  • From: Quantum Ranger
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: PD
• Re: Interchangeability between Energy, Light and Matter.
  • From: PD
• Re: Interchangeability between Energy, Light and Matter.
  • From: PD
• Re: Interchangeability between Energy, Light and Matter.
  • From: luke . saul
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Androcles
• Re: A Flower for Einstein
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: A Flower for Einstein
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Sue...
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: kenseto
• Re: A Flower for Einstein
  • From: glird
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Igor
• A Flower for Einstein
  • From: glird
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• If lightspeed were constant to all frames
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: cosmology
  • From: Androcles
• Re: cosmology
  • From: dwhig265
• Re: cosmology
  • From: Androcles
• Re: cosmology
  • From: dwhig265
• Re: cosmology
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: cosmology
  • From: dwhig265
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: xxein
• Re: cosmology
  • From: dwhig265
• Re: Relativity.
  • From: xxein
• Re: cosmology
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Thinking about gravitational RedShift
  • From: John Polasek
• Interchangeability between Energy, Light and Matter.
  • From: Y
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Spaceman
• "General Relativity Examined"
  • From: Iam
• Re: Relativity
  • From: Shubee
• Relativity
  • From: glird
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Shubee
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Relativity.
  • From: Y
• Re: Why did Einstein
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Why did Einstein
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Thomas Heger
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Darwin123
• What It’s Like After Death: The New Paradigm Revelations
  • From: sufigeorge
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: The TimeLord
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Benj
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: strich . 999
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: strich . 999
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Space cannot afford time
  • From: Y
• Re: Quantity of Eternity/
  • From: Y
• Quantity of Eternity/
  • From: Y
• Re: <In E=mc^2 the greatest MASS is the "incipient one", measured by a balance>, by Romano Amodeo.
  • From: Y
• Nothingness. ? !!!
  • From: socratus
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Thomas Heger
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Physics Exam. (The quantity of Eternity)
  • From: Y
• Evolution, Relativity, Global Warming, Religion of the Left..
  • From: Leonard Abbott
• <In E=mc^2 the greatest MASS is the "incipient one", measured by a balance>, by Romano Amodeo.
  • From: amoram
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: PD
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: PD
• Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: PD
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: YBM
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: PD
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: shuba
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Physics Exam. (The quantity of Eternity)
  • From: Y
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Physics Exam. (The quantity of Eternity)
  • From: Y
• Re: Physics Exam. (The quantity of Eternity)
  • From: Y
• Physics Exam. (The quantity of Eternity)
  • From: Y
• Galilean transformation equation explanation of relativity of time
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: PD
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• einstien was a dildo that should stir them up ha ha
  • From: dr what the black side of dr who
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: PD
• Re: STRICH Thread: Putting Relativity to Rest
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: STRICH Thread: Putting Relativity to Rest
  • From: rotchm@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: STRICH Thread: Putting Relativity to Rest
  • From: strich . 999
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: strich . 999
• Re: STRICH Thread: Putting Relativity to Rest
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: STRICH Thread: Putting Relativity to Rest
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: STRICH Thread: Putting Relativity to Rest
  • From: strich . 999
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: strich . 999
• Re: "Causality"
  • From: Lucien
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: coordinate transformations
  • From: mathkills
• Re: coordinate transformations
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• On the Structure of Particles and the Nature of Nuclear Forces 选项
  • From: yinbing-zhou
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Sue...
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• coordinate transformations
  • From: athan
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The David Twin paradox - for STRICH
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: Faster than light flight may be possible! article
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Faster than light flight may be possible! article
  • From: Androcles
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
  • From: Iam
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: dr . goodeyes
• Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Is Global Warming Caused By Man?
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Bill.Connelly
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: New Technology to make Matter Disappear right before your eyes has just been released !
  • From: bill
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• New Technology to make Matter Disappear right before your eyes has just been released !
  • From: Y
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
  • From: Y
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: The speed of gravity revisited
  • From: luke . saul
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: The speed of gravity revisited
  • From: luke . saul
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Jerry
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Jerry
• Stellar Splitting and pairing NEW Black holes found inside several Nebula
  • From: LeoVuyk@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: The speed of gravity revisited
  • From: Sue...
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• baby
  • From: mdrusthum
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The speed of gravity revisited
  • From: Tom Van Flandern
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: oriel36
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: Why I hate mathematicians
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Further Proof that QED Makes an Inaccurate Prediction of Hydrogen's Ionization Energy
  • From: Steve Bell
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Size of the Universe
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: LuckyE
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: oriel36
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: oriel36
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: Further Proof that QED Makes an Inaccurate Prediction of Hydrogen's Ionization Energy
  • From: Steve Bell
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Is Global Warming Caused By Man?
  • From: Nie
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: LuckyE
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Flatlanders, Boxlander and Timelanders.
  • From: Y
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Martin Hogbin
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spirit of Truth
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spirit of Truth
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spirit of Truth
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are Black Holes 'Stationary'?
  • From: Robert Karl Stonjek
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: Are Black Holes 'Stationary'?
  • From: Robert Karl Stonjek
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spirit of Truth
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• The earth is flat... why not the universe?
  • From: mathkills
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: mathkills
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Further Proof that QED Makes an Inaccurate Prediction of Hydrogen's Ionization Energy
  • From: kp
• Re: Further Proof that QED Makes an Inaccurate Prediction of Hydrogen's Ionization Energy
  • From: Hayek
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: glird
• Re: Further Proof that QED Makes an Inaccurate Prediction of Hydrogen's Ionization Energy
  • From: Steve Bell
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Do Oceans Cause Plate Tectonics?
  • From: Nie
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: New straw man by Pete
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Further Proof that QED Makes an Inaccurate Prediction of Hydrogen's Ionization Energy
  • From: kp
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Further Proof that QED Makes an Inaccurate Prediction of Hydrogen's Ionization Energy
  • From: Steve Bell
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Further Proof that QED Makes an Inaccurate Prediction of Hydrogen's Ionization Energy
  • From: kp
• Re: New analysis of data in Miller's 1933 paper reveals a real signal.
  • From: Surfer
• Re: Why I hate mathematicians
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: New analysis of data in Miller's 1933 paper reveals a real signal.
  • From: Surfer
• Re: Why I hate mathematicians
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: mathkills
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: PD
• the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.
  • From: glird
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: harry
• Re: "Causality"
  • From: mathkills
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: "Causality"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: "Causality"
  • From: mathkills
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• "Causality"
  • From: Nie
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: PD
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spirit of Truth
• Re: Lets VOTE Einstine Theory.
  • From: Sanny
• Re: New analysis of data in Miller's 1933 paper reveals a real signal.
  • From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Tell me about warp device?
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are Black Holes 'Stationary'?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Justintruth
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: xxein
• Re: Are Black Holes 'Stationary'?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: Are Black Holes 'Stationary'?
  • From: xxein
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Androcles
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• johnreed take 25
  • From: johnlawrencereedjr
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: STRICH invention: DAVID inertial motion detector
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: STRICH invention: DAVID inertial motion detector
  • From: iqgoogol
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: blackhead
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: STRICH invention: DAVID inertial motion detector
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Why I hate mathematicians
  • From: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are Black Holes 'Stationary'?
  • From: dlzc
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Are Black Holes 'Stationary'?
  • From: Robert Karl Stonjek
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• "How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"
  • From: Nie
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Sue...
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Raghar
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Raghar
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Albertito
• Re: The speed of gravity revisited
  • From: luke . saul
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: luke . saul
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: harry
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Eric Gisse
• The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: "Dimensional Analysis and Relativity"
  • From: xxein
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
  • From: xxein
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: jrysk
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: jrysk
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Pmb
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Hayek
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Physics versus Mathematics
  • From: Thomas Heger
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Physics versus Mathematics
  • From: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: jrysk
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: jrysk
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Greg Neill
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Simple Simon
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Greg Neill
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Pmb
• "How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"
  • From: Nie
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Martin Hogbin
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: "Dimensional Analysis and Relativity"
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: Pmb
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Why I hate mathematicians
  • From: Edward Green
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: JohnRyskamp via NatScience.com
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Martin Hogbin
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Question about Calculating Expectation Values in Free Dirac Theory
  • From: Jay R. Yablon
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• "What Special and General Relativity Tell Us About the Universe"
  • From: Nie
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Are there forces in relativity?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Sue...
• Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
  • From: jrysk
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jrysk
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: PD
• Re: Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: Shubee
• Re: Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: Shubee
• Re: Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Is there a moderated version of this newsgroup?
  • From: peeter
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Physics versus Mathematics
  • From: Thomas Heger
• Re: Top US Anthrax Researcher Apparently Commits Suicide As FBI (Ouch!) Closes In
  • From: Don Stockbauer
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: Is This a Subtle but [snip]
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: PD
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: New nonsenses and lie by Eric
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: New nonsenses and lie by Eric
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Yuancur
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: New analysis of data in Miller's 1933 paper reveals a real signal.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
  • From: Symmetry Observer
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
  • From: glird
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Relativity and delusion
  • From: Mitch Raemsch
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: Mitch Raemsch
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: xxein
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: glird
• Re: Relativity and delusion
  • From: glird
• Re: Relativity and delusion
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Relativity and delusion
  • From: glird
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Einstein's Rigid Body
  • From: maxwell
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Relativity and delusion
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Relativity and delusion
  • From: Dono
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: luke . saul
• Re: Relativity and delusion
  • From: glird
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: News lie by Eric
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Recommendations for effective online scientific discussion
  • From: Pmb
• Re: Recommendations for effective online scientific discussion
  • From: Bob Cain
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: New version of"Does mass increase with speed?" FAQ
  • From: Pmb
• Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
  • From: Symmetry Observer
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: The speed of gravity revisited
  • From: Tom Van Flandern
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• "The Properties of the Aether"
  • From: Fos
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Chalky
• Re: "Dimensional Analysis and Relativity"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Peri of Pera
• Re: "Dimensional Analysis and Relativity"
  • From: xxein
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: xxein
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Ben Bean
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Special Relativity in the 21st century
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: rotchm@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: rotchm@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Chalky
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Chalky
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: kenseto
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: rotchm@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• "Dimensional Analysis and Relativity"
  • From: Fos
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: jem
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: test
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: PD
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• <<Why today the electron's mass in kg is <only> the Moment of its Force. Its exact Force's quantity>>, by Romano Amodeo
  • From: amoram
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Koobee Wublee
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Bryan Olson
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: The relativity of simultaneity
  • From: Bryan Olson
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Peri of Pera
• Re: Faster than Light?
  • From: Peri of Pera
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: gravity theory
  • From: Spaceman
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: Walter Davis
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: rvallshg
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: PD
• Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: gravity theory
  • From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: Ben Bean
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: shalayka
• Re: Gravitational time dilation within shell
  • From: shalayka