Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #567840 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-11-26 09:40 -0800 |
| Last post | 2021-11-30 16:17 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 226 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 09:40 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 12:40 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 20:54 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:04 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 22:47 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 23:39 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:48 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:54 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-27 00:04 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-30 02:23 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:59 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 13:10 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Brain Hubbs <er@cvbs.nc> - 2021-11-26 21:33 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 13:25 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:28 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:45 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 06:07 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 14:17 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2021-11-27 16:03 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-27 10:33 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2021-11-27 16:59 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 09:55 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:35 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 07:39 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 09:51 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 18:16 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 10:23 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 18:28 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 10:38 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Nabor Nave <er@cwe.re> - 2021-11-27 18:49 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 19:05 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 12:22 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 20:44 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 12:58 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2021-11-27 22:05 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 21:22 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 14:13 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 14:33 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 14:42 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 23:27 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 16:21 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 17:04 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 02:05 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 19:59 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 20:13 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 20:30 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 22:33 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 13:29 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2021-11-28 15:12 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 09:49 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 08:35 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 20:13 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 02:05 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 22:40 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 15:02 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 16:07 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 00:16 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-27 16:24 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 02:05 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-28 08:07 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 16:32 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-28 08:39 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2021-11-28 18:14 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-28 15:08 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-28 17:18 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-28 18:15 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-29 03:27 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-11-28 21:27 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-28 07:53 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-27 23:00 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 13:29 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 07:55 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-28 09:52 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 07:57 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-29 07:01 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-29 14:21 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-30 07:07 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 13:15 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 05:51 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-01 09:03 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 13:40 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-02 07:32 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 22:56 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-02 09:20 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-02 16:03 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-09 08:57 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 15:56 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-10 06:37 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-10 02:00 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 14:11 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-10 21:49 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 21:03 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-10 21:09 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-11 09:23 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-11 20:40 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-11 16:21 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-13 08:04 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 14:01 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-13 16:50 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-14 07:53 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-14 12:47 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-15 08:37 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-15 10:03 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-15 15:37 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-16 06:49 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 15:54 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-17 08:13 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-17 11:32 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-18 07:14 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-17 22:34 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2021-12-17 23:50 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-18 14:06 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-20 07:50 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-19 23:00 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-20 03:20 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-20 13:32 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-21 08:10 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 08:38 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-21 09:51 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 07:31 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-24 09:34 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-24 15:09 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-25 08:26 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-26 15:22 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-27 21:39 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-27 16:11 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-28 07:59 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-28 02:27 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-29 07:17 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 08:47 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-29 03:50 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2021-12-28 14:19 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-29 07:00 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2021-12-29 05:23 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2021-12-29 19:04 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2021-12-29 12:06 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-30 08:12 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2021-12-30 05:24 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-30 14:40 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-29 11:46 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-30 08:23 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-30 12:49 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-28 13:45 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-24 13:34 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-25 08:15 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-25 13:02 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-25 21:04 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-26 15:22 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-27 16:28 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-26 15:22 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-27 21:48 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-28 13:45 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-28 10:57 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2021-12-28 18:19 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 02:45 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-29 07:23 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 08:19 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-29 03:26 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-30 08:27 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-30 14:51 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-29 03:22 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Mason Hess <cvb@bnma.ui> - 2021-12-29 11:51 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-29 11:34 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-17 18:03 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-16 11:39 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Vaugn Rhea <wert@cvb.er> - 2021-12-18 17:20 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-12-12 23:36 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-13 22:05 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 19:50 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 20:31 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2021-12-14 11:41 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 13:15 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-14 10:40 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 08:13 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Vaugn Rhea <wert@cvb.er> - 2021-12-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Vaugn Rhea <wert@cvb.er> - 2021-12-18 17:57 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Vaugn Rhea <wert@cvb.er> - 2021-12-18 18:00 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 08:19 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 08:51 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2021-12-15 15:35 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-12-17 05:25 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2021-12-17 16:21 +0100
Growing Earth theory (was Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2021-12-10 23:12 +0100
Re: Growing Earth theory (was Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 15:24 -0800
Re: Growing Earth theory (was Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-11 09:10 +0100
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 22:47 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 23:19 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 23:52 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-01 12:14 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 09:42 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 10:57 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 19:22 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 12:20 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 21:00 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 16:41 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 18:17 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 20:07 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 20:47 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-02 01:11 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 22:22 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-03 00:26 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-12-02 22:15 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-02 22:35 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 08:29 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:59 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 08:57 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 20:13 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 07:27 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-30 10:45 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 16:17 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 13:59 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 22:21 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 15:57 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 00:13 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 16:26 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-30 22:51 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 23:18 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-01 13:40 +0000
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 23:18 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-28 20:29 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 07:16 -0800
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-30 10:42 -0500
Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 16:17 +0000
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 08:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f136b2bf-71a6-4bb0-a019-4829af79d6d6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568005 |
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only > >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a > >>>>>>>>>>>> gale. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative > >>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and > >>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world > >>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. > >>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double > >>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or > >>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. > >>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing > >>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high > >>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of > >>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is > >>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure > >>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The question was simple. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t > >>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not > >>>>>> just do junior high algebra. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide. > >>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there > >>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. > >>>>> > >>>>> and > >>>>> > >>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) > >>> > >>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) > >> Alright. > >>> > >>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that > >>> > >>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ > >>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] > >>> > >> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future > >> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely > >> specify the events…. > >> > >> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t > >> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. > >>> > >>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving > >>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the > >>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. > >>>> > >>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are > >>>> going to be measured between…. > >>>>> > >>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some > >>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of > >>>>> which also coincide. > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic > > symbols any way you want to. Go. > > > Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have > some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I > remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and > splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” > This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. > > I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just > read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in > the subject here. Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. > But since you asked for a formula, try this one: > > v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). > > Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? > When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your choice of the notation, v'. Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) which leads to v' = u u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that v' = u = v or equivalently x'/t' = x/t = v Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity. > That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so0aum$1gde$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568061 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16-Nov-2021 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gale. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative >>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and >>>>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world >>>>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. >>>>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double >>>>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or >>>>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. >>>>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing >>>>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high >>>>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of >>>>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is >>>>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure >>>>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question was simple. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t >>>>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not >>>>>>>> just do junior high algebra. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide. >>>>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there >>>>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) >>>>> >>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) >>>> Alright. >>>>> >>>>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that >>>>> >>>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ >>>>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] >>>>> >>>> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future >>>> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely >>>> specify the events…. >>>> >>>> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t >>>> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. >>>>> >>>>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving >>>>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the >>>>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are >>>>>> going to be measured between…. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some >>>>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of >>>>>>> which also coincide. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic >>> symbols any way you want to. Go. >>> >> Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have >> some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I >> remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and >> splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” >> This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. >> >> I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just >> read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in >> the subject here. > Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and > Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. >> But since you asked for a formula, try this one: >> >> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). >> >> Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? >> > When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either. > > May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your > choice of the notation, v'. > > Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. > > v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) > > which leads to > > v' = u > > u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that > > v' = u = v Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos. > > or equivalently > > x'/t' = x/t = v And again. So silly! > > Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the > third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty > much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity. Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a problem here too, Pat? > > >> That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 08:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f7100de-0af3-4ef7-af7d-6481c2562956n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568065 |
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:32:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16-Nov-2021 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gale. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative > >>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world > >>>>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. > >>>>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double > >>>>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or > >>>>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. > >>>>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing > >>>>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high > >>>>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of > >>>>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is > >>>>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure > >>>>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The question was simple. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t > >>>>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not > >>>>>>>> just do junior high algebra. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide. > >>>>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there > >>>>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) > >>>>> > >>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) > >>>> Alright. > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that > >>>>> > >>>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ > >>>>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] > >>>>> > >>>> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future > >>>> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely > >>>> specify the events…. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t > >>>> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving > >>>>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the > >>>>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are > >>>>>> going to be measured between…. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some > >>>>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of > >>>>>>> which also coincide. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic > >>> symbols any way you want to. Go. > >>> > >> Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have > >> some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I > >> remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and > >> splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” > >> This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. > >> > >> I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just > >> read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in > >> the subject here. > > Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and > > Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. > >> But since you asked for a formula, try this one: > >> > >> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). > >> > >> Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? > >> > > When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. > Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either. > > > > May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your > > choice of the notation, v'. > > > > Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. > > > > v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) > > > > which leads to > > > > v' = u > > > > u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that > > > > v' = u = v > Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos. > > > > or equivalently > > > > x'/t' = x/t = v > And again. So silly! > > > > Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the > > third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty > > much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity. > Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a > problem here too, Pat? > > I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like to put it) the entire world. Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity. > > > >> That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 18:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <so0dd0$m0g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568069 |
Op 28-nov.-2021 om 17:39 schreef patdolan: > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:32:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> x'/t' = x/t = v >> And again. So silly! >>> >>> Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the >>> third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty >>> much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity. >> Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a >> problem here too, Pat? >>> > I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like to put it) the entire world. Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity. Not only were you spoonfed already in my first reply to your "critical relativity theory", you were actually intravenously baxtered. Good grief, what a sub-twerp you have become :-| Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so0oma$48q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568069 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:32:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16-Nov-2021 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gale. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. >>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing >>>>>>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of >>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is >>>>>>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure >>>>>>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question was simple. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t >>>>>>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not >>>>>>>>>> just do junior high algebra. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins >>>>>>>>> coincide. >>>>>>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there >>>>>>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) >>>>>> Alright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ >>>>>>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] >>>>>>> >>>>>> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future >>>>>> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely >>>>>> specify the events…. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t >>>>>> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving >>>>>>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the >>>>>>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are >>>>>>>> going to be measured between…. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some >>>>>>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of >>>>>>>>> which also coincide. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic >>>>> symbols any way you want to. Go. >>>>> >>>> Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have >>>> some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I >>>> remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and >>>> splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” >>>> This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. >>>> >>>> I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just >>>> read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in >>>> the subject here. >>> Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and >>> Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. >>>> But since you asked for a formula, try this one: >>>> >>>> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). >>>> >>>> Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? >>>> >>> When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. >> Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either. >>> >>> May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your >>> choice of the notation, v'. >>> >>> Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. >>> >>> v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) >>> >>> which leads to >>> >>> v' = u >>> >>> u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that >>> >>> v' = u = v >> Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos. >>> >>> or equivalently >>> >>> x'/t' = x/t = v >> And again. So silly! >>> >>> Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the >>> third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty >>> much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity. >> Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a >> problem here too, Pat? >>> > I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like > to put it) the entire world. Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you. I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems. v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c Note that v’ is not 1. You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable fool. Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or have you had enough? > Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity. >>> >>>> That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 15:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cf1ce4b5-5615-46d2-9ab7-31c7da3ad0c3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568095 |
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:26:53 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:32:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16-Nov-2021 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gale. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. > >>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing > >>>>>>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of > >>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is > >>>>>>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure > >>>>>>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The question was simple. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t > >>>>>>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not > >>>>>>>>>> just do junior high algebra. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins > >>>>>>>>> coincide. > >>>>>>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there > >>>>>>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) > >>>>>> Alright. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ > >>>>>>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future > >>>>>> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely > >>>>>> specify the events…. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t > >>>>>> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving > >>>>>>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the > >>>>>>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are > >>>>>>>> going to be measured between…. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some > >>>>>>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of > >>>>>>>>> which also coincide. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic > >>>>> symbols any way you want to. Go. > >>>>> > >>>> Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have > >>>> some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I > >>>> remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and > >>>> splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” > >>>> This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. > >>>> > >>>> I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just > >>>> read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in > >>>> the subject here. > >>> Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and > >>> Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. > >>>> But since you asked for a formula, try this one: > >>>> > >>>> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). > >>>> > >>>> Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? > >>>> > >>> When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. > >> Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either. > >>> > >>> May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your > >>> choice of the notation, v'. > >>> > >>> Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. > >>> > >>> v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) > >>> > >>> which leads to > >>> > >>> v' = u > >>> > >>> u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that > >>> > >>> v' = u = v > >> Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos. > >>> > >>> or equivalently > >>> > >>> x'/t' = x/t = v > >> And again. So silly! > >>> > >>> Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the > >>> third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty > >>> much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity. > >> Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a > >> problem here too, Pat? > >>> > > I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like > > to put it) the entire world. > Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you. > > I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how > bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems. > > v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v > > v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c > > Note that v’ is not 1. > Now put in 0 for v. > You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books > about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and > puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable > fool. > > Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or > have you had enough? > > Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity. > >>> > >>>> That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 17:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5b2f26b6-fe4e-4dea-8da8-c0541c87d217n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568111 |
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 3:08:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:26:53 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:32:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16-Nov-2021 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gale. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of > > >>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is > > >>>>>>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure > > >>>>>>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> The question was simple. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t > > >>>>>>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not > > >>>>>>>>>> just do junior high algebra. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins > > >>>>>>>>> coincide. > > >>>>>>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there > > >>>>>>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) > > >>>>>> Alright. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ > > >>>>>>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future > > >>>>>> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely > > >>>>>> specify the events…. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t > > >>>>>> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving > > >>>>>>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the > > >>>>>>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are > > >>>>>>>> going to be measured between…. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some > > >>>>>>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of > > >>>>>>>>> which also coincide. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>>>> Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic > > >>>>> symbols any way you want to. Go. > > >>>>> > > >>>> Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have > > >>>> some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I > > >>>> remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and > > >>>> splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” > > >>>> This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. > > >>>> > > >>>> I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just > > >>>> read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in > > >>>> the subject here. > > >>> Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and > > >>> Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. > > >>>> But since you asked for a formula, try this one: > > >>>> > > >>>> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). > > >>>> > > >>>> Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? > > >>>> > > >>> When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. > > >> Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either. > > >>> > > >>> May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your > > >>> choice of the notation, v'. > > >>> > > >>> Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. > > >>> > > >>> v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) > > >>> > > >>> which leads to > > >>> > > >>> v' = u > > >>> > > >>> u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that > > >>> > > >>> v' = u = v > > >> Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos. > > >>> > > >>> or equivalently > > >>> > > >>> x'/t' = x/t = v > > >> And again. So silly! > > >>> > > >>> Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the > > >>> third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty > > >>> much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity. > > >> Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a > > >> problem here too, Pat? > > >>> > > > I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like > > > to put it) the entire world. > > Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you. > > > > > I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how > > bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems. > > > > > v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v > > > > v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c > > > > Note that v’ is not 1. > > > Now put in 0 for v. > > You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books > > about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and > > puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable > > fool. > > > > Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or > > have you had enough? > > > Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity. > > >>> > > >>>> That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Are you stuck again Bodkin? No? Then make the substitution and calculate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 18:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4131b4c-438e-4724-a696-98ad46f50491n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568118 |
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:18:39 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 3:08:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:26:53 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:32:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16-Nov-2021 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gale. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is > > > >>>>>>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The question was simple. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t > > > >>>>>>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not > > > >>>>>>>>>> just do junior high algebra. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins > > > >>>>>>>>> coincide. > > > >>>>>>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there > > > >>>>>>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) > > > >>>>>> Alright. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ > > > >>>>>>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future > > > >>>>>> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely > > > >>>>>> specify the events…. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t > > > >>>>>> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving > > > >>>>>>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the > > > >>>>>>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are > > > >>>>>>>> going to be measured between…. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some > > > >>>>>>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of > > > >>>>>>>>> which also coincide. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > >>>>> Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic > > > >>>>> symbols any way you want to. Go. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have > > > >>>> some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I > > > >>>> remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and > > > >>>> splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” > > > >>>> This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just > > > >>>> read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in > > > >>>> the subject here. > > > >>> Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and > > > >>> Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. > > > >>>> But since you asked for a formula, try this one: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? > > > >>>> > > > >>> When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. > > > >> Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either. > > > >>> > > > >>> May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your > > > >>> choice of the notation, v'. > > > >>> > > > >>> Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. > > > >>> > > > >>> v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) > > > >>> > > > >>> which leads to > > > >>> > > > >>> v' = u > > > >>> > > > >>> u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that > > > >>> > > > >>> v' = u = v > > > >> Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos. > > > >>> > > > >>> or equivalently > > > >>> > > > >>> x'/t' = x/t = v > > > >> And again. So silly! > > > >>> > > > >>> Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the > > > >>> third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty > > > >>> much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity. > > > >> Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a > > > >> problem here too, Pat? > > > >>> > > > > I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like > > > > to put it) the entire world. > > > Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you. > > > > > > > > I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how > > > bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems. > > > > > > > > v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v > > > > > > v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c > > > > > > Note that v’ is not 1. > > > > > Now put in 0 for v. > > > You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books > > > about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and > > > puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable > > > fool. > > > > > > Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or > > > have you had enough? > > > > Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity. > > > >>> > > > >>>> That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > >>> > > > >> -- > > > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > Are you stuck again Bodkin? No? Then make the substitution and calculate. Man-up Bodkin. Put the "About the Odd Bodkin" thread out of your mind. Let v = 0. Go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 03:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so1hav$qeu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568111 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:26:53 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:32:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16-Nov-2021 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gale. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high >>>>>>>>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of >>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure >>>>>>>>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question was simple. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t >>>>>>>>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not >>>>>>>>>>>> just do junior high algebra. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins >>>>>>>>>>> coincide. >>>>>>>>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there >>>>>>>>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) >>>>>>>> Alright. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ >>>>>>>>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future >>>>>>>> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely >>>>>>>> specify the events…. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t >>>>>>>> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving >>>>>>>>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the >>>>>>>>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are >>>>>>>>>> going to be measured between…. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some >>>>>>>>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of >>>>>>>>>>> which also coincide. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic >>>>>>> symbols any way you want to. Go. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have >>>>>> some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I >>>>>> remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and >>>>>> splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” >>>>>> This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just >>>>>> read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in >>>>>> the subject here. >>>>> Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and >>>>> Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. >>>>>> But since you asked for a formula, try this one: >>>>>> >>>>>> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). >>>>>> >>>>>> Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? >>>>>> >>>>> When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. >>>> Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either. >>>>> >>>>> May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your >>>>> choice of the notation, v'. >>>>> >>>>> Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. >>>>> >>>>> v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) >>>>> >>>>> which leads to >>>>> >>>>> v' = u >>>>> >>>>> u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that >>>>> >>>>> v' = u = v >>>> Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos. >>>>> >>>>> or equivalently >>>>> >>>>> x'/t' = x/t = v >>>> And again. So silly! >>>>> >>>>> Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the >>>>> third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty >>>>> much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every >>>>> aspect of relativity. >>>> Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a >>>> problem here too, Pat? >>>>> >>> I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like >>> to put it) the entire world. >> Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you. >> > >> I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how >> bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems. >> > >> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v >> >> v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c >> >> Note that v’ is not 1. >> > Now put in 0 for v. Yes indeed. Note that u is not 0. The result is that v’=u. But v’ is then not zero while v is. Feel like an idiot yet? > >> You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books >> about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and >> puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable >> fool. >> >> Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or >> have you had enough? >>> Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity. >>>>> >>>>>> That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 21:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c2c5e6a3-aa8c-4c4b-b755-cba61888146fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568128 |
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:27:34 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:26:53 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 8:32:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:40:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:22:58 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:17:54 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Van de immoortel fumble: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So when you write > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16-Nov-2021 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, it is the second postulate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gale. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin and Dirk, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x' axes coincide. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> champion math idiots, after all. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system of equations you want solved and why. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Now, what does that bile produce? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The question was simple. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t > >>>>>>>>>>>> intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not > >>>>>>>>>>>> just do junior high algebra. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins > >>>>>>>>>>> coincide. > >>>>>>>>>> Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there > >>>>>>>>>> is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Event 2 located at spacetime points (x', t') and/or (x, t) > >>>>>>>> Alright. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ > >>>>>>>>> | t-final minus t-initial | ] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future > >>>>>>>> light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely > >>>>>>>> specify the events…. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t > >>>>>>>> for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving > >>>>>>>>>> relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the > >>>>>>>>>> one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are > >>>>>>>>>> going to be measured between…. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some > >>>>>>>>>>> velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of > >>>>>>>>>>> which also coincide. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic > >>>>>>> symbols any way you want to. Go. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have > >>>>>> some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I > >>>>>> remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and > >>>>>> splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.” > >>>>>> This just meant that they understood nothing, of course. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just > >>>>>> read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in > >>>>>> the subject here. > >>>>> Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and > >>>>> Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula. > >>>>>> But since you asked for a formula, try this one: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Put in c for v. What do you get for v’? > >>>>>> > >>>>> When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c. > >>>> Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either. > >>>>> > >>>>> May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your > >>>>> choice of the notation, v'. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v. > >>>>> > >>>>> v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2) > >>>>> > >>>>> which leads to > >>>>> > >>>>> v' = u > >>>>> > >>>>> u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that > >>>>> > >>>>> v' = u = v > >>>> Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos. > >>>>> > >>>>> or equivalently > >>>>> > >>>>> x'/t' = x/t = v > >>>> And again. So silly! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the > >>>>> third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty > >>>>> much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every > >>>>> aspect of relativity. > >>>> Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a > >>>> problem here too, Pat? > >>>>> > >>> I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like > >>> to put it) the entire world. > >> Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you. > >> > > > >> I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how > >> bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems. > >> > > > >> v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v > >> > >> v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c > >> > >> Note that v’ is not 1. > >> > > Now put in 0 for v. > Yes indeed. Note that u is not 0. The result is that v’=u. But v’ is then > not zero while v is. > v'=u (∆x'/∆v')(∆v'/∆t) = (∆x/∆u)(∆u/∆t) ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t > Feel like an idiot yet? > > > >> You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books > >> about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and > >> puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable > >> fool. > >> > >> Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or > >> have you had enough? > >>> Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity. > >>>>> > >>>>>> That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms. > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 07:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles |
| Message-ID | <j0gnb7Fe2bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #567840 |
Am 26.11.2021 um 18:40 schrieb Dono.: > One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions. Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is repeated is wrong. Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so often, rather then about what you believe. But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority. This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not agree to what was brainwashed into your head. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-27 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cec5ad24-7a53-46d9-a101-45423b98fe8dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568036 |
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 3:53:31 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote: So, then clearly Einstein's heirs are the Mr. Hyde of every single die hard relativist here and all over out there. Crystal clear now. > Am 26.11.2021 um 18:40 schrieb Dono.: > > One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > > > The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions. > Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is > repeated is wrong. > > Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so > often, rather then about what you believe. > > But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because > you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority. > > This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead > of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not > agree to what was brainwashed into your head. > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 13:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles |
| Message-ID | <so007u$bsg$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568036 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 26.11.2021 um 18:40 schrieb Dono.: >> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how >> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still >> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. >> > > The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions. > Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is > repeated is wrong. > > Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so > often, rather then about what you believe. > > But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because > you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority. > > This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead > of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not > agree to what was brainwashed into your head. > > > TH > Some things are worth questioning. Others are not. Conviction can come from EITHER indoctrination or education. Don’t muddle the two. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 07:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f2fa1d2-f2c2-4ac6-b2de-0750ad2f964an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568043 |
On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 14:29:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: > > Am 26.11.2021 um 18:40 schrieb Dono.: > >> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how > >> many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still > >> persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. > >> > > > > The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions. > > Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is > > repeated is wrong. > > > > Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so > > often, rather then about what you believe. > > > > But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because > > you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority. > > > > This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead > > of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not > > agree to what was brainwashed into your head. > > > > > > TH > > > Some things are worth questioning. Others are not. The Shit, of course, shouldn't be questioned, as it has convinced an idiot woodworker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <so0537$hf8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568036 |
On 11/28/2021 1:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 26.11.2021 um 18:40 schrieb Dono.: >> One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, >> how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they >> still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn. The common feature of the cranks in the subject (as well as many, many others) really seems to be textbook Dunning-Kruger Effect at work. These people all think they are more knowledgeable than they actually are. I am surprised that the Dunning-Kruger paper is rather recent. I would have expected it to have been characterized during the time of Freud or so. On the other hand, saying someone "doesn't know what he doesn't know" is a very old expression. > The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions. People telling others that they are wrong isn't voting on 'truth'. It is simply telling them they are wrong. > Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is > repeated is wrong. > > Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so > often, rather then about what you believe. Yet the Dunning-Kruger people here (who also have significant NPD, are they linked?) would rather repeat their claims than learn or discuss validity. Their Dunning-Kruger prevents them from realizing they need to learn. And those who try to correct them think that they will learn if corrected enough. Thus both "sides" repeat. > > But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because > you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other > authority. Wrong, true scientists question earlier discoveries all the time. If for no other reason than a Nobel awaits anyone truly overthrowing a past great. They also know their own discovery must also explain everything already observed, something cranks ignore. They also know that extreme support of a theory means that attempts at disproving it are likely to fail. > > This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead > of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not > agree to what was brainwashed into your head. "Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 07:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <84e3166a-8b18-4937-b187-0741e4b39be9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568054 |
On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 15:52:26 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > "Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider > standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing". Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as standard scientific methodology; and that's because they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 07:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles |
| Message-ID | <j0j8m2Ff774U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568060 |
Am 28.11.2021 um 16:57 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 15:52:26 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> "Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider >> standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing". > > Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as > standard scientific methodology; and that's because > they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike. > I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm. I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'. This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived. So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which I would recommend, but which these people had. This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing. So, why is that? I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who think for themselves or do not follow orders. This training is unnecessarily complicated, because it is actually a training. The 'real deal' would be way too easy, hence true knowledge is strictly forbidden (otherwise there would be no training effect and true knowledge would come into 'wrong' hands). This idea came too me, shortly after I had finished my 'book'. (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing ) The trouble I had was this: I thaught it is mainly correct, but it was way too easy. The only possible explanation for me was, that its content was already known for ages and what is taught in schools and universities is a mere farce, used to train the new apprentises in 'scientific sorcery'. The situation seemed to be very unfortunate for the 'insiders', who have devoted their lives to such a system, because it is a very protected system, which could perpetuate itself for ages and which required strict obedience to secrecy and the ability to speak and write bullshit, which sounds scientific. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 14:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles |
| Message-ID | <so2nll$ppb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568142 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 28.11.2021 um 16:57 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >> On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 15:52:26 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >>> "Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider >>> standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing". >> >> Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as >> standard scientific methodology; and that's because >> they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike. >> > > I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm. > > I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'. > > This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived. > > So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which > I would recommend, but which these people had. > > This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the > personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing. > > So, why is that? > > I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as > training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who > think for themselves or do not follow orders. This is the silliest thing I’ve read in a week. And I’ve read some pretty silly things. > > This training is unnecessarily complicated, because it is actually a > training. > > The 'real deal' would be way too easy, hence true knowledge is strictly > forbidden (otherwise there would be no training effect and true > knowledge would come into 'wrong' hands). > > This idea came too me, shortly after I had finished my 'book'. > (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > ) > > The trouble I had was this: I thaught it is mainly correct, but it was > way too easy. > > The only possible explanation for me was, that its content was already > known for ages and what is taught in schools and universities is a mere > farce, used to train the new apprentises in 'scientific sorcery'. > > The situation seemed to be very unfortunate for the 'insiders', who have > devoted their lives to such a system, because it is a very protected > system, which could perpetuate itself for ages and which required strict > obedience to secrecy and the ability to speak and write bullshit, which > sounds scientific. > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-30 07:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles |
| Message-ID | <j0ltdmF6rlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568147 |
Am 29.11.2021 um 15:21 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Am 28.11.2021 um 16:57 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 15:52:26 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> >>>> "Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider >>>> standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing". >>> >>> Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as >>> standard scientific methodology; and that's because >>> they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike. >>> >> >> I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm. >> >> I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'. >> >> This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived. >> >> So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which >> I would recommend, but which these people had. >> >> This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the >> personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing. >> >> So, why is that? >> >> I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as >> training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who >> think for themselves or do not follow orders. > > This is the silliest thing I’ve read in a week. And I’ve read some pretty > silly things. Well, possibly my 'theory' is entirely wrong. But it has internal consistency and functions in agreement with observations. For instance: as you know, I have analysed Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' very carefully and think, it contains so many errors, that it is not even bunk. It is imho a mere farce, which spits into the face of science. If so, then there could be more of the same kind. And if so, then 'real science' could be actually surpressed by unknow forces (together with the real scientists). Then we need a really messy system, by which the next generation is educated. It should be extremely difficult nonsense, which the apprentice had to memorize and had to repeat by heart every at any given time. This functions as a 'gate-keeper' for a secret cult, which actually has true knowledge about the real world. This secret 'sect' builds then all the cool things, which allow the cult to earn money, and all the advanced weapons, to surpress those, which do not comply. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-30 13:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles |
| Message-ID | <so5862$133$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568203 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 29.11.2021 um 15:21 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> Am 28.11.2021 um 16:57 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>> On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 15:52:26 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider >>>>> standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing". >>>> >>>> Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as >>>> standard scientific methodology; and that's because >>>> they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike. >>>> >>> >>> I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm. >>> >>> I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'. >>> >>> This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived. >>> >>> So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which >>> I would recommend, but which these people had. >>> >>> This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the >>> personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing. >>> >>> So, why is that? >>> >>> I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as >>> training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who >>> think for themselves or do not follow orders. >> >> This is the silliest thing I’ve read in a week. And I’ve read some pretty >> silly things. > > > Well, possibly my 'theory' is entirely wrong. But it has internal > consistency and functions in agreement with observations. > > For instance: > as you know, I have analysed Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies' very carefully and think, it contains so many errors, > that it is not even bunk. > > It is imho a mere farce, which spits into the face of science. > > If so, then there could be more of the same kind. > > And if so, then 'real science' could be actually surpressed by unknow > forces (together with the real scientists). > > Then we need a really messy system, by which the next generation is > educated. > > It should be extremely difficult nonsense, which the apprentice had to > memorize and had to repeat by heart every at any given time. > > This functions as a 'gate-keeper' for a secret cult, which actually has > true knowledge about the real world. > > This secret 'sect' builds then all the cool things, which allow the cult > to earn money, and all the advanced weapons, to surpress those, which do > not comply. > > > ... > > TH > The wonderful thing about wild conspiracy theories is that they all fit the evidence. Even the lack of evidence is evidence of the conspiracy. The evidence is all covered up by agents of the conspiracy! It all make so much sense! -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web