[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:09:14 +1000
G'day all.and Allen
Allen you are giving me a problem.. I have responded to yours below in another
post with as little verbage as possible..To the rest. ..
At the simple practical level and not including any Einstein and company's
theories or complications I think it appropriate for me to try and explain in
simple terms what I think Allen is saying, and which I chose to ignore, for no
other reason than that the effect of which he speaks is relatively negligible
enough at these orbital speeds to be ignored...
I said: An external force of Gravity acts on every particle of matter in a
given space equally. Ok I limit the space to a space shuttle size.. and a
basket ball inside it. The external force of gravity is the resultant due to
one or more sources.. Why complicate the exercise by going galactic. In effect
I said. If a gravitational field changed due to say a passing heavy object, the
shuttle would be deviated off course, (a change of acceleration) but that the
ball hanging in the air inside would be caused to deviate exactly in
synchronism .. There would be no ball crashing against the wall of the
shuttle.. This is exactly as occurs, if you are not so paranoid about it to
say they would conspire to lie.
Allen is trying to bring in to the equation the internal forces of the
structures of the ball and the forces that connect its particles , as he speaks
"of the materials that it acts on have different properties.."
I can see that when I consider other forces acting on an object to cause
motion, that we have to consider chemical elasticity and compressibility
factors, relative to adjacent or included materials not directly driven by the
force.
But are these properties important in the action of a gravitational force?
Certainly they are not relevant enough to be actually felt in the real life of
the space station crew..
It is as Allen said "a matter of scale.". Perhaps, and maybe, but certainly
negligible at the scale we are working with.
To analyse it I took the simplest particle to be inside the shuttle, a hydrogen
atom.
Here we have a massive proton, separated apart from an almost weightless
electron. These are held together by the internal electrical and mechanical
forces of its atomic structure. I could be wrong, but if gravity acts on every
particle equally, as is shown in practical experiments, then a gravitational
deviation of force to the left would shift both the proton and the electron
equally to the left, posing no strain or change in force on the forces holding
that atom together. It would maintain its integrity unchanged.
I say this despite some "higher authorities" claiming a relationship between
gravitional , and electromagnetic forces.. .. No such proof of these claims
has ever been forthcoming..
Philip.
He holds all of his creation in the palm of His gravitational hand ....
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 2:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Phil,
1.I was not shouting...the font defaulted to 24 and i wrote those in a hurry
i was busier then i normally am......no spell check or double check of
anything......AS for STR and GTR you still don’’t apply GTR or it termonology
or concepts consistently and you are right you "really know what it is".......
."Then I've heard of special relativity... I don't really know what it is.
but it could be suspect."............
"I have heard of Einsteins general relativity I don't really know what it is.
but it could be suspect. If its this, then I do not support it or ever proclaim
it. Its an unproven theory you see. "
2. Newton did not proclaim that a gyro cannot detect the acceleration in
free fall!?............The theories you say you don’t know what they are (GTR
STR) did that!, after real world experiments not just Newton’s thought
experiments were actually performed and showed difficulties with understanding
of motions in a HC universe????........... I think it is funny you keep saying
things like "The application of gravity effects every molecule in a given space
equally, on the sprung mass of an accelerometer and the springs as also on the
vehichle containing it. As far as I know, gravity is the only force that can do
this". SO What do You base this on what?! A Ball and feather?!..no one is
arguing that a ball and feather in a vacuum chamber will appear to your supper
scientific calibrated eye to hit bottom at the same time.....??? Neither will
any HS student who has ever taken a accelerometer on a roller coaster or
elevator ..or even a free fall from a hot air balloon claim that every molecule
in that accelerometer had the gravitational force to act on every part of it
equally such that it showed no acceleration !?..why?...because although the
force of gravity itself is consistent...the materials that it acts on have
different properties......oh you forgot to take into consideration that
different materials transfer "FORCE" as you point out so cleverly here
differntly..
"There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen. the
definition is all inclusive Acceleration, is change in motion due to an
application of a force or forces. .. full stop". So if force is force then the
difference must be in the materials that must emit that force but also how
that/ any force is transmitted through all the materials...................wait
for it phil...............since there is a interior and a exterior and the
source according to newton is the masses then ......OH MY GOODNESS I THINK WE
JUST HAD AN EPIPHANY!? Gravity even if though it is constant & consistent
"force" must still traverse and even pass through various different materials
that have various different properties wrt how they emit/transmits "forces"..we
know that is true cos density affects "force transmision" "in the lab"
.......PHIL, .you know all thoes "gravitons" or what ever it is in MS or
"Newton’s universe" that causes and transmits gravity....oh wait, Newton did
not know what gravity was, so he never actually specified or even address that
little issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????? ......(that was as shout!)....now,
I'll tone it down an octive or two...........So ...you mean......"Gravity
force" whatever that is may not be the only variable to how gravity works in
the real world?....Yes, that is what real world not just thought experiments
show...........ummmm......... what a novel idea!
3....If there is no difference in acceleration forces then you certainly
cannot claim a gyro cannot detect a acceleration in free fall in orbit around a
body...if the gyro detects a change in orientation wrt the body in the same
direction as the orbit .....ta-da.... then it must have detected that
acceleration (by definition of acceleration)!?...This is especially true if the
rate of orientation change wrt the body is identical to the orbital period!?
Phil not only do you keep invoking logical contradictions and inconsistent
terminology of MS while claiming you dont subscribe to it but you insiste on
holding me to the very thing you say you do not accept but use to make all your
argument?
4. I dont have to mention problems with tides and inertia itself again ..just
dont think i forgot about it.....
5. "If we could control the movement of a vehicle and its passengers by
gravitation, it could make sudden 20,000mph right angle turns and the
passengers would not even know the turn had been made.. Isaac Asimov. " He
bases this statement on what?! Maybe one day a moment of consistent & "sober"
thought ;-) will pass by your way...when it does don’t just wave at as passes
you by ...for heaven sake get out into the middle of the road highjack it and
take all they got!........;-) LOL
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 5:22:05 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
No Phil Allen is rattled.. he is shouting.. it doesn't work.. see I turned
the volume down..
"niether Paul nor you have demonstrated in any fasion the differnce between
an acceleration in any direction and a change in oreintaion to any
direction..which by deffintion requires an acceleration to that direction!? The
dishonesty here is with thoes who say..." etc
There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen. the
definition is all inclusive Acceleration, is change in motion due to an
application of a force or forces. .. full stop.
Simple vector diagrams of applied forces explain both the direction and
magnitude of change of velocity of the motion of any mass. We were/are
discussing the effect of the application of just one type of force.. gravity.
The application, Allen not the theory of whys or wherefores.. The application
of gravity effects every molecule in a given space equally, on the sprung mass
of an accelerometer and the springs as also on the vehichle containing it. As
far as I know, gravity is the only force that can do this.
If we could control the movement of a vehicle and its passengers by
gravitation, it could make sudden 20,000mph right angle turns and the
passengers would not even know the turn had been made.. Isaac Asimov.
The rest of your post was beyond garbled.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 9:19 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
The issue hinges as it always has on absolute motion or not...as of yet
Regner, Paul nor you have demonstrated in any fasion the differnce between an
acceleration in any direction and a change in oreintaion to any
direction..which by deffintion requires an acceleration to that direction!? The
dishonesty here is with thoes who say The gyro will not detect linear
acceleration. It cannot be truely called an accelerometer.
Other then baseless and empty assertions on confused and self
contridictory statments made in relitivity no one has been able to show
certainly not demonstrate the or any differnce between linear and circular
accelerations! Merly asserting a thing does not make it true.......!? I have
taken MS/relitivities own precepts and shown your and all these argument wrt
accelration false.
you keep invoking logical contridictions as well as contridictions in terms
themself as validity for your, Pauls and Regners postions.....you should be
happy but your not?????
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 4:07:09 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
What on earth are you thinking....if "regner disqualified" whay cant "i
disqualify"...Philp you are not making any sense......the argument must stand
on its own as of yet they have not demonstrated a arguement that can stand on
its own they like you just wave your hand and declare "it is thus so" or "thus
invalid" Allen
You cannot "disqualify" Allen because you support your argument by false
physics,"like you just wave your hand" either your own when required or modern
relativists when it suits you to use it as a weapon... And its a war you are
making ..
And it is false physics to declare, 4. Inertia is by defintion a change wrt
the grav feild..
All of yours below was an attack at war , and you never once acknowledged
or even attempted to counter, the few simple truths I mentioned. ie
Paul, and Regner, have specifically excluded a gyro, acknowledging that
it will detect curved orbital motion, and you know it, or you have wittlessly
not read the posts. The flywheel action is not a gravitational effect. .. It
can detect curved motion, which is acceleration.
The gyro will not detect linear acceleration. It cannot be truely called an
accelerometer.
You are dishonest by trying to say that they were speaking of a gyro when
detecting free fall.. THEY DID NOT...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Philip
1.You can use a effect that works at one scale to define things for a
differnt scales everyone including MS knows does not work....!?
2.Yes Philip if you would bother to pay attention you would see that for
a fact they do detect accelerations even in free fall in the real world of
rockets not the imaginary one you and they keep appealing to in your head
because you don't understand how it could..!??? I even explained why and how
in real world terms, applications and experiments not your imaginary thought
experiments, just becuse you cannot detect the change in a 100' vacum drop not
mean there is no change...!?
3. Philip See also attached.....You cannot have a detectable change in
oreintaion around a grav body while in free fall and not have a accerleration
by defintion wrt that same body..!? We are still waiting for Regner to show us
how he plans to do that..where have you been! Just because Paul and Regner
excluded by what contrived authority do they do such..logiec NO observation NO!
Experimence NO!.. So the fact that "they excluded a gyro
means...what?!..NOTHING except they cant answer the chalenge! Philip where are
you???
There is no difference between a change in direction( acceleration)
within ones own radius and a change external of ones own radius!...we call on a
orbit the other is a spin. A a gyro cannot demonstrate a detection of change in
direction/ within its own radius wrt a body in free fall but at the same time
not be able to detect a change in direction outside its own radius wrt that
same body/grav field ....that is a logical contridicion.....and cannot be
demonstrated anywhere in the universe wake up!
4. Inertia is by defintion a change wrt the grav feild..how on earth can
any inertia exist anywhere in the universe (even in deep space where Einstine
equivicates it to a free fall in a grav field) if you cannot detect the change
of a body in elitpical orbit in free fall....PHIL .. that is by defintion a
change wrt the grv field!?....You cannot calim inertia is a change wrt the grav
feild but have no detectable change wrt to that fieild, becuase a eliptical
orbit is not any differnt then any other motion wrt any other field in
space!......Inertia & grav are either exist or it does not but you cannot use
them in a self exclusive and contridictory way! it is there but you can only
detect inertia when there is a change wrt grav feild in free fall or (deep
space) but have no detecable change wrt a grav feild......
5 Simply making assertions about what Paul and or Regner and or
Relitivity state proves nothing and deomnstrates nothing! Most importaintly, it
certainly dose not negate or somehow nulify my arguments! What on earth are you
thinking....if "regner disqualified" whay cant "i disqualify"...Philp you are
not making any sense......the argument must stand on its own as of yet they
have not demonstrated a arguement that can stand on its own they like you just
wave your hand and declare "it is thus so" or "thus invalid". I puit forward
arguments claiming my argument is invalid because your theory makes certain
claims is logical..?!? That is the whole point for the decusion to evaluate
their claims and ours!!! you cannot make an evaluation of mine by assuming
theirs is true! that is not a evaluation that is a circular falicy! You siply
amaze me you at times see to understand then latter you get confused agin by
the circular logic of relitivity and its proponets...????
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 7:02:42 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
that principle only holds true at certain scales...and i have already
stated scale is the problem .....???????? Paul and I were not into those
scales.. We were in the scale range where in practical terms as you say "the
principle holds true.."
An accelerometer specifically the spring type, but I add any type no
matter how sensitive, will not show any reading during any accelerating state
caused by gravitational forces, which for example the geostationary satellite
is doing..YES IT WILL, IT DOES AND THEY USE IT in space!?
Yes they use it and No it won't measure accelerating state caused by
gravitational forces... They use it to measure acceleration due to their own
local powered movements obital corrections etc.
If you have a super duper laser accelerometer that would work in this
situation, Send it to Nasa It'd have to be worth millions. This gets to the
whole motion & acceleration issues.....Any Sagnag gyro will show any motion
free fall or now wrt earth/bakground stars.......and thanks but NASA already
has and usese it so dose DOD??? ..there is a difference between what the text
books espouse and what works in reality, have you been keeping up the post this
is a demonstratable fact.....!?
Hang on now.. Paul, and Regner, have specifically excluded a gyro,
acknowledging that it will detect curved orbital motion, and you know it, or
you have wittlessly not read the posts. The flywheel action is not a
gravitational effect. .. It can detect curved motion, which is acceleration.
The gyro will not detect linear acceleration. It cannot be truely called
an accelerometer.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Blue...
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 5:50:53 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
We are not discussing a ball and a feather we are discusing how gravity
works not just on the small scale but large scale with planets and suns
ect.....All bodies and a universe all interacting at once with
eachother......Allen
No we are not! You might want to.. Paul merely stated a working
principle that works in real experiments, proven yes, and related to the
feather drop experiment.. Again that principle only holds true at certain
scales...and i have already stated scale is the problem .....????????
An accelerometer specifically the spring type, but I add any type no
matter how sensitive, will not show any reading during any accelerating state
caused by gravitational forces, which for example the geostationary satellite
is doing..YES IT WILL, IT DOES AND THEY USE IT in space!? or the Space
station. Those guys have no instruementation available to them, laser or
otherwise that would tell them what their acceleration was or even if they were
accelerating.
The sun the moon or the stars passing would perhaps change the
rate/direction of acceleration, but such changes not register on any
accelerometer of even be felt by their inner ear.. the most sensitive
accelerometer I have. Even if they looked out, their eyes would deceive what
their brain told them as they gazed upon the spinning ball called earth, and a
sun or moon speeding by.
If you have a super duper laser accelerometer that would work in this
situation, Send it to Nasa It'd have to be worth millions. This gets to the
whole motion & acceleration issues.....Any Sagnag gyro will show any motion
free fall or now wrt earth/bakground stars.......and thanks but NASA already
has and usese it so dose DOD??? ..there is a difference between what the text
books espouse and what works in reality, have you been keeping up the post this
is a demonstratable fact.....!?
Philip.
I drop my worthless bit of comment into your questions below
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:22 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Phil,
1. How does a ball and feather drop prove gravitational theory and
demonstrate that with planitary mechanics ....??? the discussion was not to
prove any theory. It was confirming Pauls assertion concerning the working of
an accelerometer. The reality of what happens, has happened is happening and
which you deny. The above drop experiment proves that gravity acceleration ,
what ever its source, or however it operates , acts on every single molecule
equally without preference. regardless of its mass, and thus cannot be detected
by any mass object within itself. The hit at the bottom of course is a
different equation altogether. Likewise any drive source using internal energy
on part of the object/s.
If the above experiment were long enough a drop, then any large mass
placed close to the tube say half way, the deviation on the feather and the
lead ball would be exactly equal. and undetectable by any onboard instruements.
But I believe laboratory positioned observers can read the effects.
2.Even MS openly admits the inverse square law breaks down and is not
absolute....??? As above this does not even come into the discussion re
accelerometers function. I'd say, So what! Where I placed the single planet
and satellite, for your discussion, it was so far away that the gravity of the
universal mass , inverse square law value not withstanding or zero value ,
meaning both zero, close enough, you did not want to play.. Because that was a
fair experiment, where you could not bring in "diabolical" distractions.
3. The fact that it breaks down so much so that they have to create
90% of their universal modle built with "dark matter" and "dark energy" that is
only knowable by vertue of the fact that their model would not work without
it....!? Well I doubt Paul or myself intended taking any accelerometer that
far out..This is just another mental distraction where you cant keep your mind
on the main point of discussion as I showed above. You are guilty of
*diabolical* obfuscation. All three,
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with
extraneous information.
3. to darken.
4. We are not discussing a ball and a feather we are discusing how
gravity works not just on the small scale but large scale with planets and suns
ect.....All bodies and a universe all interacting at once with
eachother......This should have been at the top of your list ... No we were
not being large scale.. Paul merely stated that the spring loaded
accelerometer cannot detect acceleration from inside the body acted on by a
gravitational field in orbit around the sun or earth. This is proven in
practise at least around the earth. The ball and feather experiment
demonstrates it on the ground, and should give you a clue as to how and why
without any large scale galaxies coming into it..
I would remind you that this inverse square law was discussed by
Neville and others some time ago, and even if the law failed with regard to the
earth way out near Pluto, the figure would be so negligible as to be non
existent. Matter out there would come under the influence of Pluto or what
ever. . However I think the astronomers of long past and the most recent, have
shown that this inverse law of gravity has maintained great accuracy as regards
the deviations of the planets and their moons for our solar system in general,
and our own moon in particular.
Allen you are not doing a very good service to the geocentric
cause.by ignoring the difference between theoretical concepts, and real
material experiments. Keep your subject threads separate please.. I will try
to do likewise..
Philip. .
His head, like a smokejack, the funnel unswept, and the ideas
whirling round and round about in it, all obfuscated and darkened over with
fuliginous matter. --Sterne.
Clouds of passion which might obfuscate the intellects of meaner
females. --Sir. W. Scott.
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 2:31:45 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Allen! My experiment was not a thought experiment game but a real
mechanical question.. so I'll try enother highschool one..
If I drop a feather and a lead ball ten times the weight from a
height, down an inclosed vacuum tube, at exactly the same time, which will hit
the bottom first?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:35 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Philip M (and any others interested).
It might have been interesting but in the face of such sophistry
any further effort would just be wasted effort.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 4 April, 2008 3:24:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Guys we are not descusing nor can we experinace/demonstrate a
universe with one sun and one earth in it!?.....You simply cannot creat in your
heads some imaginary universe with only two bodies in it and extropolate the
physics of the curent real universe neither did Newton or Einstine base their
conclusions on such absurdities....The conclusions of their theories and even
in their thought experiments was based on all the bodies interacting with each
other................without absolut knowledge of what gravity is in the first
place your disscusion realy will be nothing more then a "game" not any
meaningfull discussion on inertia or detectable accelerations......... MS does
not claim the physics of the universe to work on a two body system!.......Thus,
it is not even remotley posible to mimic the real universe except in the
imaginations of your heads and even at that assuming gravity is what you think
it is in the first place!? I not interested in pursuing that kind of "game".
Start with what you have not with what you do not have..We have observations
that show not imagine that what you suppose is not true from the get go!..Why
persue a conclusion we already know to be false?!.....If it were true that you
could not detect accelertions in a free fall around in a grav feild then simply
the tides cold not exist as per MS.....Guys I'm not interested in pursuing your
thought experiments that are based on false assumptions. You dont see your
whole problem is you are so indocrinated with your idea of gravity that is
actualy not even correct in MS but you insist on it so much that you refuse to
see that your "games" are not based on any reality they are based on your lack
of understanding of MS......???
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2008 12:05:38 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Yeah...Wwork from a basic setup .. Nothing in the universe but a
stationary sun and a planet orbiting around it at a great speed.. There is no
need to bring in the butterfly principle that fluttering wings in Adelaide
makes it rain in New York.
Even Allen must accept, geocentrism or not, that we can lay down
ground rules for our lab in space experiment.. Another sun another planet all
alone in the void.
OK now I am all the way with PD that no accelerometer on that
planet no matter how sensitive, will detect the acceleration of that planet as
it circles that sun at a constant velocity in a perfectly circular orbit.. .
That will do for starters so as not to complicate the maths with
elliptical variables and barycentres..
After that when Allen finds that we is true, we can bring in other
variables due to elliptical orbits where the velocity varies, so that we will
have two different accelerations, created by the same force.. and why again the
accelerometer shows nothing..
Of course it doesn't on my kitchen table, but Allen cops out on
that one because the table aint moving. Its geocentrism see.. But the guys in
or on the space station will not feel anything on their table either.. Let
the game begin//
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:37 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Allen D
What I've always wanted to discuss but from a seeming auspicious
beginning starting at (Item 2, second paragraph, beginning "However, I will go
this far.....").
"New game" in this context means "Put aside all previous baggage
and make a fresh start concentrating exclusively on the accelerometer, the
elliptical orbit and the Sun".
At the outset, I acknowledge that every atom in the universe
influences every other atom in the universe but take the view that it is not
necessary to go to this level in order to gain an understanding of the basic
mechanisms involved.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 3 April, 2008 7:59:37 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
"New game. Are you interested in detachedly discussing
accelerometers?"
What would you like to discuss?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date:
3/04/2008 6:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.6/1360 - Release Date:
4/04/2008 6:02 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.7/1361 - Release Date:
5/04/2008 7:53 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.7/1361 - Release Date:
5/04/2008 7:53 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date:
6/04/2008 11:12 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 6/04/2008
11:12 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 6/04/2008
11:12 AM
Other related posts:
