Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375419 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-02 11:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 00:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 22:07 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 23:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 04:54 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 05:10 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 06:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 06:59 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 19:29 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 11:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 23:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:21 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 04:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:12 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 05:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-04 21:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:56 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 10:15 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 19:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 01:45 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 21:59 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 23:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 23:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 00:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 02:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 22:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:52 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 06:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:14 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 12:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-05 21:51 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 04:35 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 09:23 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 19:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 10:52 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 22:34 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 13:08 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 08:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 09:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 22:49 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 13:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 14:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-08 13:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:01 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 23:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 00:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 04:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 05:51 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 06:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 07:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-10 18:16 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 09:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 13:36 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 18:50 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 00:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 21:41 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 04:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 05:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 07:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-11 17:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-12 16:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 00:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 11:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 08:43 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 22:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 12:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 12:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 18:28 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-15 12:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-15 15:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-16 11:19 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 02:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 04:17 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 12:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-17 06:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 17:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 23:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 22:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 23:00 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 09:19 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-21 13:29 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-13 06:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 16:27 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 15:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 08:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 08:53 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 16:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 12:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 15:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 10:08 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:10 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 20:12 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:09 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 07:57 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 08:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-06 13:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 07:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 23:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 10:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-07 00:46 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 15:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:39 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 10:11 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs <solar@plexus.org> - 2016-02-07 19:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 14:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-08 09:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-06 21:57 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Καλυψώ <calipso214@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 15:33 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-08 17:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:25 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 23:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:58 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 00:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:55 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 00:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-04 06:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 22:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di8hnfFl0m0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376153 |
On 13/02/2016 6:43 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:di7ar0Fc24tU1@mid.individual.net... > > >> That's because I'm not a relativistic moron. >> >> > > |What exactly do you believe in this area? > |What do you consider is the proper interpretation of the results of the > |Michelson Morley experiments and similar experiments done subsequently? > > I really don't care. You can interprete them the way You wish. You understand, I trust, that real clocks consist of an ensemble of atoms, and the ensemble has to function according to physical laws. So in discovering what those laws are, we're also discovering how our real clocks will behave. The usual modern interpretation of the Michelson Morley experimental results is that the speed of light is a constant - all observers measure it to have the same value. Now, we can measure the speed of light over a path to a distance mirror and back. To do so, we measure the round trip time using a real clock, and measure the distance travelled using a real ruler. And here's the rub - we cannot get a consistent theory that describes the results unless time and distance behave according to the special theory of relativity. That means that the *real* clocks *must* give readings that obey the theory. > Just stop insist measurement confirm time dilation. > Measurement of time is reading REAL indications of REAL > clocks. But it's exactly these real clocks that give the readings you dislike. Note that in measuring the speed of light over a round trip, there is only one clock. The issue of unsynchronised clocks doesn't come into it. So you can't avoid time dilation by appeal to the de- synchronisation of clocks. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9n5i7$vbv$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376154 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:di8hnfFl0m0U1@mid.individual.net... |You understand, I trust, that real clocks consist of an ensemble of |atoms, and the ensemble has to function according to physical laws. Bull shit. Read some Tom's. Science, including physics and its laws, is a software for brain. Nothing more, nothing less. > Just stop insist measurement confirm time dilation. > Measurement of time is reading REAL indications of REAL > clocks. |But it's exactly these real clocks that give the readings you dislike. They are not real. And they won't get real, because they DON'T WORK. Real clocks are indicating t'=t, and will continue, not because these mystic "laws of physics", but because we need clocks to be synchronized.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 23:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di8kabFlllaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376155 |
On 13/02/2016 10:54 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:di8hnfFl0m0U1@mid.individual.net... > > |You understand, I trust, that real clocks consist of an ensemble of > |atoms, and the ensemble has to function according to physical laws. > > Bull shit. Read some Tom's. > Science, including physics and its laws, is a software for brain. > Nothing more, nothing less. >> Just stop insist measurement confirm time dilation. > >> Measurement of time is reading REAL indications of REAL >> clocks. > > |But it's exactly these real clocks that give the readings you dislike. > > They are not real. And they won't get real, because they > DON'T WORK. > Real clocks are indicating t'=t, and will continue, not because > these mystic "laws of physics", but because we need clocks > to be synchronized. > Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a light-second away. Now, look at the mirror through a telescope. When you see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what do you expect the clock to show? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 12:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9n6si$9m1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376156 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse > generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next > produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a > light-second away. Now, look at the mirror through a telescope. When you > see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what do > you expect the clock to show? Amaze me. What?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 18:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diaol0F7m63U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376157 |
On 13/02/2016 11:17 PM, Muddy Shoes wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> Suppose you take your real clock, put it next to a light pulse >> generator, set it to zero, and start it when the pulse generator next >> produces a pulse which is sent towards a distant mirror, half a >> light-second away. Now, look at the mirror through a telescope. When you >> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what do >> you expect the clock to show? > > Amaze me. What? > Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 21:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9qqlt$1hbi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376195 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >>> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what do >>> you expect the clock to show? >> >> Amaze me. What? >> > Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to > dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. So will you see the spot in the mirror after ½ sec? The mirror is ½ sec apart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 12:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dicmjiFnk16U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376237 |
On 15/02/2016 8:13 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what do >>>> you expect the clock to show? >>> >>> Amaze me. What? >>> >> Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to >> dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. > > So will you see the spot in the mirror after ½ sec? The mirror is ½ sec > apart. > The light has to travel to the mirror, and then back again, so twice the half light-second distance to the mirror. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 15:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9ssbj$esd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376247 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/02/2016 8:13 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>>> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what >>>>> do you expect the clock to show? >>>> >>>> Amaze me. What? >>>> >>> Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to >>> dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. >> >> So will you see the spot in the mirror after ½ sec? The mirror is ½ sec >> apart. >> > The light has to travel to the mirror, and then back again, so twice the > half light-second distance to the mirror. Sylvia. So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 11:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dif88nFdaroU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376266 |
On 16/02/2016 2:54 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 15/02/2016 8:13 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>>>> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what >>>>>> do you expect the clock to show? >>>>> >>>>> Amaze me. What? >>>>> >>>> Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to >>>> dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. >>> >>> So will you see the spot in the mirror after ½ sec? The mirror is ½ sec >>> apart. >>> >> The light has to travel to the mirror, and then back again, so twice the >> half light-second distance to the mirror. Sylvia. > > So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that > mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible? > I don't understand your difficult with this. It takes the light from the pulse generator half a second to reach the mirror. It then takes the reflected light half a second to get back. So you see the reflection of the pulse one second after it was emitted from the pulse generator. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 02:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <376e9d19-ff49-4b60-a192-3459c8eedfb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376293 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 lutego 2016 01:19:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 16/02/2016 2:54 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 15/02/2016 8:13 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: > >>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what > >>>>>> do you expect the clock to show? > >>>>> > >>>>> Amaze me. What? > >>>>> > >>>> Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to > >>>> dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. > >>> > >>> So will you see the spot in the mirror after ½ sec? The mirror is ½ sec > >>> apart. > >>> > >> The light has to travel to the mirror, and then back again, so twice the > >> half light-second distance to the mirror. Sylvia. > > > > So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that > > mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible? > > > > I don't understand your difficult with this. It takes the light from the > pulse generator half a second to reach the mirror. It then takes the > reflected light half a second to get back. So you see the reflection of > the pulse one second after it was emitted from the pulse generator. You don't understand the difficulty. Because You can't distinguish between reality and Your gedankens. A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth has less, than 13 000km diameter. Do You see a difficulty now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 03:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec4aeb57-5a21-45cc-81f4-de52040445e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376316 |
El martes, 16 de febrero de 2016, 7:53:48 (UTC-3), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu wtorek, 16 lutego 2016 01:19:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > On 16/02/2016 2:54 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > >> On 15/02/2016 8:13 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: > > >>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>>> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what > > >>>>>> do you expect the clock to show? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Amaze me. What? > > >>>>> > > >>>> Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to > > >>>> dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. > > >>> > > >>> So will you see the spot in the mirror after ½ sec? The mirror is ½ sec > > >>> apart. > > >>> > > >> The light has to travel to the mirror, and then back again, so twice the > > >> half light-second distance to the mirror. Sylvia. > > > > > > So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that > > > mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible? > > > > > > > I don't understand your difficult with this. It takes the light from the > > pulse generator half a second to reach the mirror. It then takes the > > reflected light half a second to get back. So you see the reflection of > > the pulse one second after it was emitted from the pulse generator. > > You don't understand the difficulty. > Because You can't distinguish between reality and > Your gedankens. > A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth > has less, than 13 000km diameter. > Do You see a difficulty now? The Polish troll does not understand any of this. For over 40 years the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment has been using using laser ranging where lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15), and the time for the reflected light to return is determined. Those refletors are at around 384,000 km and the round trip is about 2.5 seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 04:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <44988f23-c999-4cdd-9d00-cd07f6548ed9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376317 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 lutego 2016 12:26:30 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > El martes, 16 de febrero de 2016, 7:53:48 (UTC-3), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > > W dniu wtorek, 16 lutego 2016 01:19:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > On 16/02/2016 2:54 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 15/02/2016 8:13 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: > > > >>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what > > > >>>>>> do you expect the clock to show? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Amaze me. What? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to > > > >>>> dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. > > > >>> > > > >>> So will you see the spot in the mirror after ½ sec? The mirror is ½ sec > > > >>> apart. > > > >>> > > > >> The light has to travel to the mirror, and then back again, so twice the > > > >> half light-second distance to the mirror. Sylvia. > > > > > > > > So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that > > > > mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible? > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand your difficult with this. It takes the light from the > > > pulse generator half a second to reach the mirror. It then takes the > > > reflected light half a second to get back. So you see the reflection of > > > the pulse one second after it was emitted from the pulse generator. > > > > You don't understand the difficulty. > > Because You can't distinguish between reality and > > Your gedankens. > > A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth > > has less, than 13 000km diameter. > > Do You see a difficulty now? > > The Polish troll does not understand any of this. For over 40 years the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment has been using using laser ranging where lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15), and the time for the reflected light to return is determined. Those refletors are at around 384,000 km and the round trip is about 2.5 seconds. Very nice, but are you sure there were no difficulties, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 05:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <39c7d79d-eaa8-410a-98ab-d24d8db8f7e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376320 |
El martes, 16 de febrero de 2016, 9:17:14 (UTC-3), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu wtorek, 16 lutego 2016 12:26:30 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > You don't understand the difficulty. > > > Because You can't distinguish between reality and > > > Your gedankens. > > > A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth > > > has less, than 13 000km diameter. > > > Do You see a difficulty now? > > > > The Polish troll does not understand any of this. For over 40 years the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment has been using using laser ranging where lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15), and the time for the reflected light to return is determined. Those refletors are at around 384,000 km and the round trip is about 2.5 seconds. > > Very nice, but are you sure there were no difficulties, > poor idiot? Well imbecile troll, you see, you are unable to understand "reality" from a gedanken. The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment is reality (built, installed and being used). So go fuck yourself in your shitty bathroom!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 12:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dihvs7F4eg7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376316 |
On 16/02/2016 9:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 16 lutego 2016 01:19:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 16/02/2016 2:54 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>> On 15/02/2016 8:13 AM, Céline Desirée Hedwig wrote: >>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> see the light pulse arrive back after bouncing off the mirror, what >>>>>>>> do you expect the clock to show? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amaze me. What? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I doubt there's anyone in this newsgroup who's going to >>>>>> dispute that it's 1 second. The fun comes later. >>>>> >>>>> So will you see the spot in the mirror after ½ sec? The mirror is ½ sec >>>>> apart. >>>>> >>>> The light has to travel to the mirror, and then back again, so twice the >>>> half light-second distance to the mirror. Sylvia. >>> >>> So you see the bouncing in the mirror after one sec, even known that >>> mirror is only ½ sec apart? How is this possible? >>> >> >> I don't understand your difficult with this. It takes the light from the >> pulse generator half a second to reach the mirror. It then takes the >> reflected light half a second to get back. So you see the reflection of >> the pulse one second after it was emitted from the pulse generator. > > You don't understand the difficulty. > Because You can't distinguish between reality and > Your gedankens. > A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth > has less, than 13 000km diameter. > Do You see a difficulty now? Not really. Where did I say that any part of this experiment was being done on Earth? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 06:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <na10md$orl$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376376 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dihvs7F4eg7U1@mid.individual.net... > A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth > has less, than 13 000km diameter. > Do You see a difficulty now? |Not really. Where did I say that any part of this experiment was being |done on Earth? So You don't. As I've said, You can't distinguish between real world and Your gedankens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 17:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diihssF8bbnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376380 |
On 17/02/2016 4:32 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dihvs7F4eg7U1@mid.individual.net... > >> A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth >> has less, than 13 000km diameter. >> Do You see a difficulty now? > > |Not really. Where did I say that any part of this experiment was being > |done on Earth? > > So You don't. > As I've said, You can't distinguish between real world > and Your gedankens. > You're really being quite silly, as well as evasive. I assume that's deliberate. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 23:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c3d1ec9-9200-4122-873e-9a86fca70c04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376381 |
W dniu środa, 17 lutego 2016 07:22:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 17/02/2016 4:32 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:dihvs7F4eg7U1@mid.individual.net... > > > >> A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth > >> has less, than 13 000km diameter. > >> Do You see a difficulty now? > > > > |Not really. Where did I say that any part of this experiment was being > > |done on Earth? > > > > So You don't. > > As I've said, You can't distinguish between real world > > and Your gedankens. > > > > You're really being quite silly, as well as evasive. I assume that's > deliberate. You're really being very silly, as well as evasive. I don't assume that's deliberate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 22:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dij3e7Fcm06U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376385 |
On 17/02/2016 6:06 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 17 lutego 2016 07:22:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 17/02/2016 4:32 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>> >>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>> dyskusyjnych:dihvs7F4eg7U1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>>> A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth >>>> has less, than 13 000km diameter. >>>> Do You see a difficulty now? >>> >>> |Not really. Where did I say that any part of this experiment was being >>> |done on Earth? >>> >>> So You don't. >>> As I've said, You can't distinguish between real world >>> and Your gedankens. >>> >> >> You're really being quite silly, as well as evasive. I assume that's >> deliberate. > > You're really being very silly, as well as evasive. I don't assume that's > deliberate. > That sounds along the line of "Nah, nah, you're one too." Are you sure you're not a child? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 03:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d400ee1-48a1-4237-b622-8269fbf34836@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376402 |
W dniu środa, 17 lutego 2016 12:21:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 17/02/2016 6:06 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 17 lutego 2016 07:22:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 17/02/2016 4:32 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>> dyskusyjnych:dihvs7F4eg7U1@mid.individual.net... > >>> > >>>> A half of light second is 150 000 km. And the Earth > >>>> has less, than 13 000km diameter. > >>>> Do You see a difficulty now? > >>> > >>> |Not really. Where did I say that any part of this experiment was being > >>> |done on Earth? > >>> > >>> So You don't. > >>> As I've said, You can't distinguish between real world > >>> and Your gedankens. > >>> > >> > >> You're really being quite silly, as well as evasive. I assume that's > >> deliberate. > > > > You're really being very silly, as well as evasive. I don't assume that's > > deliberate. > > > > That sounds along the line of "Nah, nah, you're one too." You are. What can I do? > Are you sure you're not a child? Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 18:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f38be22-3594-4339-aa70-add5ece40967@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376404 |
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:26:49 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > [Pure, unadulterated CHILDISH baloney] And you act like a spoiled brat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web