Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 453 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:23 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:48 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:00 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:31 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:05 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:29 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:41 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 11:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:34 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 14:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 05:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 06:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 18:50 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 11:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 20:33 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 16:14 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 16:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 18:27 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 19:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 20:17 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 20:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 13:09 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:03 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 02:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 22:53 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 11:25 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 11:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 22:55 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 19:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 01:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 23:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 12:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 06:50 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 17:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 10:26 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 13:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-06 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 13:35 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 14:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 04:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:01 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 20:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:49 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 05:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:54 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 11:13 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:45 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 01:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:59 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 11:04 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 18:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 00:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 19:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 01:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 21:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 03:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 22:39 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 11:15 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 22:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 03:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:54 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 05:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 20:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 08:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 11:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 20:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:37 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:27 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:21 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 21:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:14 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:17 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:44 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 18:18 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:21 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:41 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:22 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:39 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 19:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 01:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 22:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 04:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 04:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 05:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 09:53 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-12 11:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 17:58 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 16:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:39 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 18:04 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:38 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:31 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 03:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:36 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 11:58 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 23:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 14:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:20 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 23:49 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 13:32 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 01:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:29 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 23:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 15:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-14 12:51 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:34 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 00:29 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 20:18 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 03:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 04:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 00:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 11:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 05:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 12:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 00:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 21:50 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 04:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 22:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 05:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 08:52 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 00:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:03 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:23 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 21:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:17 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 22:33 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 08:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 19:08 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 09:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 20:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 10:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 00:17 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 11:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 22:37 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 14:07 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 07:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 16:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 09:51 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 18:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 17:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:40 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 08:50 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 17:00 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 12:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:25 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 21:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 04:03 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 04:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:57 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 21:46 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 14:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 22:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 20:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:22 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 21:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 22:38 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:20 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 23:03 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 13:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 22:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 20:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 23:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-10 05:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 15:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-11 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 17:55 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 09:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 17:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:12 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 16:33 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 18:28 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:00 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:42 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:48 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 06:18 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:00 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:36 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:57 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:01 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:22 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:06 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:07 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:55 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:43 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:52 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:04 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 15:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:28 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 18:11 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-14 17:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 10:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-14 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-14 06:20 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-04 09:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-04 18:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 19:36 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 20:08 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 21:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100
Page 6 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 23 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a3878e7e-d624-490e-83d4-ea4ceec2b5cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377687 |
W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:17:11 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:10:47 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > > > > > > > > Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > > > > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > > > > > > > > > > It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > > > going with this. > > > > Appears? > > Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > > prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > > You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > > and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > > 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > > Right? > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. As usual, relativistic moron is lying. The Shit predicts time dilation, not a clock error. > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) Another lie, The Shit predicts no change in frequency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 03:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <82320e3b-d575-4695-9df5-32fe675ec344@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377689 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:25:02 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:17:11 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:10:47 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > > > > > > > > > > Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > > > > > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > > > > going with this. > > > > > > Appears? > > > Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > > > prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > > > You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > > > and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > > > 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > > > Right? > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. > > As usual, relativistic moron is lying. > The Shit predicts time dilation, not a clock error. > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > Another lie, The Shit predicts no change in frequency. As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 03:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dc2b8049-9ea7-4e9b-8bc1-5d6bf19bb78e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377694 |
W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:39:05 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:25:02 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:17:11 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:10:47 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > > On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > > > > > > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > > > > > going with this. > > > > > > > > Appears? > > > > Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > > > > prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > > > > You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > > > > and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > > > > 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > > > > Right? > > > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. > > > > As usual, relativistic moron is lying. > > The Shit predicts time dilation, not a clock error. > > > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > > > Another lie, The Shit predicts no change in frequency. > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are > offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change > in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by > a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz As usual, relativistic trash is lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 05:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f5484f9-aeaa-49b3-9e2f-29238d6d60cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377696 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:47:08 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:39:05 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:25:02 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:17:11 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:10:47 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > > > On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > > > > > > > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > > > > > > going with this. > > > > > > > > > > Appears? > > > > > Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > > > > > prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > > > > > You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > > > > > 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > > > > > Right? > > > > > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. > > > > > > As usual, relativistic moron is lying. > > > The Shit predicts time dilation, not a clock error. > > > > > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > > > > > Another lie, The Shit predicts no change in frequency. > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are > > offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change > > in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by > > a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. > > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > > So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: > > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz > > As usual, relativistic trash is lying. As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <092e90df-b696-44d6-ad11-4ab3e2aeb5db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377700 |
W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 14:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:47:08 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:39:05 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:25:02 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:17:11 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:10:47 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > > > > On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > > > > > > > > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > > > > > > > going with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Appears? > > > > > > Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > > > > > > prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > > > > > > You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > > and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > > > > > > 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > > > > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > > > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > > > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > > > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > > > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > > > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. > > > > > > > > As usual, relativistic moron is lying. > > > > The Shit predicts time dilation, not a clock error. > > > > > > > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > > > > > > > Another lie, The Shit predicts no change in frequency. > > > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are > > > offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change > > > in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by > > > a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. > > > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > > > > So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: > > > > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > > GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz > > > > As usual, relativistic trash is lying. > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are > offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change > in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by > a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz As usual, relativistic trash is lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 06:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86b5da54-737d-41d7-a331-293ec657008c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377702 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:15:54 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 14:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:47:08 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:39:05 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:25:02 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:17:11 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:10:47 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > > > > > On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > > > > > > > > > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > > > > > > > > going with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Appears? > > > > > > > Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > > > > > > > prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > > > > > > > You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > > > and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > > > > > > > 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > > > > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > > > > > > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > > > > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > > > > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > > > > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > > > > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > > > > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. > > > > > > > > > > As usual, relativistic moron is lying. > > > > > The Shit predicts time dilation, not a clock error. > > > > > > > > > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > > > > > > > > > Another lie, The Shit predicts no change in frequency. > > > > > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are > > > > offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change > > > > in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by > > > > a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. > > > > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > > > > > > So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: > > > > > > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > > > GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz > > > > > > As usual, relativistic trash is lying. > > > > As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. > > > > The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. > > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. > > The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would > > appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to > > compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are > > offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change > > in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by > > a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. > > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > > So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: > > > > SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) > > GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz > > As usual, relativistic trash is lying. As usual, the Polish troll is unable to read or to understand what is written. According to the GPS official documentation The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SPACE VEHICLE. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it APPEARS TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND -- is 10.23 MHz. The SPACE VEHICLE carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an OBSERVER located in the SPACE VEHICLE -- are OFFSET to compensate for RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS. The clock rates are offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. So, Polish troll, the frequencies are as follows: SPACE VEHICLE (f')= 10.2299999954326 MHz (as predicted by GR) GROUND OBSERVED (f)= 10.23 MHz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 22:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djo2iaFrjm1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377668 |
On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. >>> >>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: >>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? >>> >> >> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're >> going with this. > > Appears? > Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > Right? > That's a non sequitur. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 04:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cecffd95-8b7b-4f39-82da-f72056021ae2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377697 |
W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > >>> > >>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > >>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > >>> > >> > >> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > >> going with this. > > > > Appears? > > Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > > prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > > You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > > and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > > 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > > Right? > > > > That's a non sequitur. :) You're wrong, that is not. So, right? Not right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 11:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djpejoF8dehU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377698 |
On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. >>>>> >>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: >>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're >>>> going with this. >>> >>> Appears? >>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense >>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. >>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz >>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency >>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. >>> Right? >>> >> >> That's a non sequitur. > > :) > You're wrong, that is not. > So, right? Not right? > Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 06:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0c04fae-68db-484c-889b-69cd2692a3f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377751 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 marca 2016 01:25:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > >>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > >>>> going with this. > >>> > >>> Appears? > >>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > >>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > >>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > >>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > >>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > >>> Right? > >>> > >> > >> That's a non sequitur. > > > > :) > > You're wrong, that is not. > > So, right? Not right? > > > > Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. > Did I understand correctly: You want me to explain, how general case clock with an internal oscillator set to switch a second with every n ticks is related with GPS clock with an internal oscillator set to switch a second with every n ticks. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 11:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djs3ivFt7o7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377782 |
On 4/03/2016 1:18 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 3 marca 2016 01:25:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: >>>>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're >>>>>> going with this. >>>>> >>>>> Appears? >>>>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense >>>>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. >>>>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz >>>>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency >>>>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. >>>>> Right? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's a non sequitur. >>> >>> :) >>> You're wrong, that is not. >>> So, right? Not right? >>> >> >> Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. >> > Did I understand correctly: You want me to explain, > how general case clock with an internal oscillator > set to switch a second with every n ticks is related > with GPS clock with an internal oscillator set to > switch a second with every n ticks. > Right? > Yes. Please explain that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f769927-972e-4878-85ef-ad1460135903@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377840 |
W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 01:35:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 4/03/2016 1:18 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 3 marca 2016 01:25:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > >>>>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > >>>>>> going with this. > >>>>> > >>>>> Appears? > >>>>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > >>>>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > >>>>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > >>>>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > >>>>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > >>>>> Right? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That's a non sequitur. > >>> > >>> :) > >>> You're wrong, that is not. > >>> So, right? Not right? > >>> > >> > >> Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. > >> > > Did I understand correctly: You want me to explain, > > how general case clock with an internal oscillator > > set to switch a second with every n ticks is related > > with GPS clock with an internal oscillator set to > > switch a second with every n ticks. > > Right? > > > > Yes. Please explain that. > > Sylvia. The relation is simple: general case clock is a general case clock, while GPS clock is a special case clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 19:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djsvkoF51d6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377863 |
On 4/03/2016 5:55 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 01:35:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 4/03/2016 1:18 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 3 marca 2016 01:25:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: >>>>>>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're >>>>>>>> going with this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Appears? >>>>>>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense >>>>>>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. >>>>>>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz >>>>>>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency >>>>>>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. >>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a non sequitur. >>>>> >>>>> :) >>>>> You're wrong, that is not. >>>>> So, right? Not right? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. >>>> >>> Did I understand correctly: You want me to explain, >>> how general case clock with an internal oscillator >>> set to switch a second with every n ticks is related >>> with GPS clock with an internal oscillator set to >>> switch a second with every n ticks. >>> Right? >>> >> >> Yes. Please explain that. >> >> Sylvia. > > The relation is simple: general case clock is a general > case clock, while GPS clock is a special case clock. > If you specify n for the GPS clock, then the period will be 1/n. Nothing special case about it. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 01:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0bf513db-f827-4a79-b40f-9c82d41cad9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377870 |
W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 09:34:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 4/03/2016 5:55 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 01:35:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 4/03/2016 1:18 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 3 marca 2016 01:25:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > >>>>>>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > >>>>>>>> going with this. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Appears? > >>>>>>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > >>>>>>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > >>>>>>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > >>>>>>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > >>>>>>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > >>>>>>> Right? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's a non sequitur. > >>>>> > >>>>> :) > >>>>> You're wrong, that is not. > >>>>> So, right? Not right? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. > >>>> > >>> Did I understand correctly: You want me to explain, > >>> how general case clock with an internal oscillator > >>> set to switch a second with every n ticks is related > >>> with GPS clock with an internal oscillator set to > >>> switch a second with every n ticks. > >>> Right? > >>> > >> > >> Yes. Please explain that. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The relation is simple: general case clock is a general > > case clock, while GPS clock is a special case clock. > > > > If you specify n for the GPS clock, then the period will be 1/n. Nothing > special case about it. And nothing non-sequitur in that, too. So, how did it happen, that clocks set for 10.2299999954326MHz are experimental confirmation, that frequency is 10.23 MHz, as it was predicted by Gret Guru and his ingenious theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 23:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djtd3pF8i3eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377874 |
On 4/03/2016 8:22 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 09:34:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 4/03/2016 5:55 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 01:35:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 4/03/2016 1:18 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 3 marca 2016 01:25:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: >>>>>>>>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're >>>>>>>>>> going with this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Appears? >>>>>>>>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense >>>>>>>>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. >>>>>>>>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz >>>>>>>>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency >>>>>>>>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. >>>>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's a non sequitur. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> :) >>>>>>> You're wrong, that is not. >>>>>>> So, right? Not right? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. >>>>>> >>>>> Did I understand correctly: You want me to explain, >>>>> how general case clock with an internal oscillator >>>>> set to switch a second with every n ticks is related >>>>> with GPS clock with an internal oscillator set to >>>>> switch a second with every n ticks. >>>>> Right? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. Please explain that. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The relation is simple: general case clock is a general >>> case clock, while GPS clock is a special case clock. >>> >> >> If you specify n for the GPS clock, then the period will be 1/n. Nothing >> special case about it. > > And nothing non-sequitur in that, too. > So, how did it happen, that clocks set for > 10.2299999954326MHz are experimental > confirmation, that frequency is 10.23 MHz, > as it was predicted by Gret Guru and his > ingenious theory? > I haven't checked your numbers, but with that caveat, that's the frequency that must be used IN ORBIT if you want the clock to tick at the same rate as a 10.23MHz clock ON THE GROUND. It's experimental confirmation because that is the frequency that general relativity predicts you'll have to use to get that behaviour. No one's said that the clock in orbit ticks once per second when it uses that frequency. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 05:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fbfe318e-2c81-469e-8076-7a0aab8829e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377875 |
W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 13:24:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 4/03/2016 8:22 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 09:34:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 4/03/2016 5:55 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 01:35:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 4/03/2016 1:18 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 3 marca 2016 01:25:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > >>>>>>>>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're > >>>>>>>>>> going with this. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Appears? > >>>>>>>>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense > >>>>>>>>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. > >>>>>>>>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz > >>>>>>>>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency > >>>>>>>>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. > >>>>>>>>> Right? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's a non sequitur. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> :) > >>>>>>> You're wrong, that is not. > >>>>>>> So, right? Not right? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Did I understand correctly: You want me to explain, > >>>>> how general case clock with an internal oscillator > >>>>> set to switch a second with every n ticks is related > >>>>> with GPS clock with an internal oscillator set to > >>>>> switch a second with every n ticks. > >>>>> Right? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yes. Please explain that. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The relation is simple: general case clock is a general > >>> case clock, while GPS clock is a special case clock. > >>> > >> > >> If you specify n for the GPS clock, then the period will be 1/n. Nothing > >> special case about it. > > > > And nothing non-sequitur in that, too. > > So, how did it happen, that clocks set for > > 10.2299999954326MHz are experimental > > confirmation, that frequency is 10.23 MHz, > > as it was predicted by Gret Guru and his > > ingenious theory? > > > > I haven't checked your numbers, but with that caveat, that's the > frequency that must be used if you want the clock to tick at Yeah. So, once again. What is the period of the oscillator tick measured on GPS by the clock there? Does it still appear as 1/n for You? > No one's said that the clock in orbit ticks once per second when it uses > that frequency. Once? well, no, it is 10 229 999. But, it is still against Your relativity:(.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 12:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djupqgFk0u9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377877 |
On 5/03/2016 12:30 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 13:24:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 4/03/2016 8:22 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 09:34:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 4/03/2016 5:55 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 01:35:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 4/03/2016 1:18 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 3 marca 2016 01:25:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 11:24 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 12:53:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 6:10 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 2 marca 2016 03:09:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It appears to be 1/n seconds. I can't imagine where you think you're >>>>>>>>>>>> going with this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Appears? >>>>>>>>>>> Well, for me it appears as one of these "common sense >>>>>>>>>>> prejudices" refuted by Your fellows. >>>>>>>>>>> You have clocks of GPS set for 10.2299999954326MHz >>>>>>>>>>> and treat them as experimental proof of frequency >>>>>>>>>>> 10.23MHz, as predicted by Your theory. >>>>>>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's a non sequitur. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>> You're wrong, that is not. >>>>>>>>> So, right? Not right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps you'd care to explain how the two are linked, then. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did I understand correctly: You want me to explain, >>>>>>> how general case clock with an internal oscillator >>>>>>> set to switch a second with every n ticks is related >>>>>>> with GPS clock with an internal oscillator set to >>>>>>> switch a second with every n ticks. >>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. Please explain that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> The relation is simple: general case clock is a general >>>>> case clock, while GPS clock is a special case clock. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you specify n for the GPS clock, then the period will be 1/n. Nothing >>>> special case about it. >>> >>> And nothing non-sequitur in that, too. >>> So, how did it happen, that clocks set for >>> 10.2299999954326MHz are experimental >>> confirmation, that frequency is 10.23 MHz, >>> as it was predicted by Gret Guru and his >>> ingenious theory? >>> >> >> I haven't checked your numbers, but with that caveat, that's the >> frequency that must be used if you want the clock to tick at > > Yeah. So, once again. > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured on GPS > by the clock there? > Does it still appear as 1/n for You? You haven't adequately defined n, and your earlier description of "switching a second" is apt to cause confusion in this context. If we say that the clock advances by one step each n periods of the oscillator, then the oscillator period is obviously 1/n times the period of a step. The period of a step is one second if, and only if, the period of the oscillator is 1/n seconds. In the case of a GPS satellite, where the period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz, but n is 10.23 * 10^6, the period of a step is not one second. However, an observer on Earth sees the GPS step once per second. Since this is what general relativity predicts, an actual observer seeing this is verification of general relativity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 06:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbds3v$263$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377917 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:djupqgFk0u9U1@mid.individual.net... > Yeah. So, once again. > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured on GPS > by the clock there? > Does it still appear as 1/n for You? |You haven't adequately defined n, and your earlier description of |"switching a second" is apt to cause confusion in this context. Confusion is only for You, because You have problems with basic terms. A second is an unit of time. Uniit of time is 1 switched by the clock. |In the case of a GPS satellite, where the period of the oscillator is |1/10.2299999954326MHz Have You heard of relativity principle? You're denying it:( But, don't worry. As Tom said, words are not important. Your sentences are self denying mumble, but does it matter? You're following Great Guru!!! You're the elite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 17:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djvav9FnokdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377928 |
On 5/03/2016 4:50 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:djupqgFk0u9U1@mid.individual.net... > >> Yeah. So, once again. >> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured on GPS >> by the clock there? >> Does it still appear as 1/n for You? > > |You haven't adequately defined n, and your earlier description of > |"switching a second" is apt to cause confusion in this context. > > Confusion is only for You, because You have problems > with basic terms. A second is an unit of time. Uniit of time > is 1 switched by the clock. Clearly a clock will only step at one second intervals if it's been constructed to that it will. > > |In the case of a GPS satellite, where the period of the oscillator is > |1/10.2299999954326MHz > > Have You heard of relativity principle? You're denying it:( No I'm not. If you think I am, then explain how. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 10:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbe8o6$li5$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377929 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:djvav9FnokdU1@mid.individual.net... On 5/03/2016 4:50 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:djupqgFk0u9U1@mid.individual.net... > >> Yeah. So, once again. >> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured on GPS >> by the clock there? >> Does it still appear as 1/n for You? > > |You haven't adequately defined n, and your earlier description of > |"switching a second" is apt to cause confusion in this context. > > Confusion is only for You, because You have problems > with basic terms. A second is an unit of time. Uniit of time > is 1 switched by the clock. |Clearly a clock will only step at one second intervals if it's been |constructed to that it will. If clock indicated 20 and now indicate 30, 10 units passed. It's nothing but simple substraction. > > |In the case of a GPS satellite, where the period of the oscillator is > |1/10.2299999954326MHz > > Have You heard of relativity principle? You're denying it:( |No I'm not. If you think I am, then explain how. According to relativity principle, all laws of physics are the same everywhere. All - means also Cs oscillator period. Everywhere - means also on GPS satellite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web