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 19 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 23 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c64d3d0-d7eb-4485-b0c0-f383dfc2a1e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379456 |
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 1:47:16 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:f5b660f8-03b2-458a-8c7a-fc1ea81ca546@googlegroups.com... > > > |Within weeks he got his butt kicked > > You mean your screams "these are not questions!!! > These are RANTS!!!!" of course. > > |I'm still waiting for him to make a single correct technical statement. > > About 2-dimensional imagined ants , probably. > > > |Other than that he relies mostly on what I call "magic incantations": > |stock phrases meant as "answers" whenever he feels cornered. > > While you, in opposition, can yell "not even wrong!!!!!" I have reasons for saying those things. You don't. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 22:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nchrgv$33k$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379462 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:4c64d3d0-d7eb-4485-b0c0-f383dfc2a1e2@googlegroups.com... On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 1:47:16 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:f5b660f8-03b2-458a-8c7a-fc1ea81ca546@googlegroups.com... > > > |Within weeks he got his butt kicked > > You mean your screams "these are not questions!!! > These are RANTS!!!!" of course. > > |I'm still waiting for him to make a single correct technical statement. > > About 2-dimensional imagined ants , probably. > > > |Other than that he relies mostly on what I call "magic incantations": > |stock phrases meant as "answers" whenever he feels cornered. > > While you, in opposition, can yell "not even wrong!!!!!" |I have reasons for saying those things. You don't. Of course. Have you already consulted a doctor about your little "I'm a guru" problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf9607c0-68f5-4d5d-b27f-ef26cc17745e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379043 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > >>>>>>> |limit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > >>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > >>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > >>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > >>>>>> standards because none are involved. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > >>>>>> said, or not? > >>>>> > >>>>> AFAIK - of course. > >>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > >>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > >>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > >>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > >>>> the error? > >>> > >>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > >>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > >>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > >>> as You think. > >> > >> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > >> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > >> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > >>> > > > > Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > > You have no clue about. > > But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > > is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > > not able to get something out from Your theory - > > unless You know precisely enough, what it should > > be. > > > >>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > >>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > >>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > >>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > >>> him, than predictions of caesium. > >>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > >>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > >>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > >> > >> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > >> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > >> will behave. > > > > Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > > indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > > No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > > didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > > I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > > > > >>>> How is that to be explained (away)? > >>> > >>> I don't care. Explain it as You wish - just > >>> remember: if WE don't want it in OUR devices, > >>> it IS an error. Your insane guru can do nothing > >>> about it. > >>> > >> > >> Since your clocks are objects, you're stuck with it. You can label it an > >> error if you wish, but it's still there. > > > > Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > > error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > > known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > > > > Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > quantifies it. If you regard the reading of a clock on Earth as correct, > then the theory tells you by how much you must adjust a clock in orbit > so that it remains synchronised with your clock on Earth. > > The thing is, the theory doesn't say anything specific about clocks. > Rather, it says something about time. It implies that your clock in > orbit is working perfectly well, but that it is time itself that is > different. That is, it's not just clocks that become unsynchronised, but > everything and anything. > > Sylvia. Dear Sylvia, for the troll that is well beyond his limited knowledge (he works as a computer programmer).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a32719d-a050-41c0-a09e-902d229943d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379047 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 15:19:31 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > >>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > > >>>>>>> |limit. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > > >>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> No, I don't. > > >>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > > >>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > > >>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > > >>>>>> standards because none are involved. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > > >>>>>> said, or not? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> AFAIK - of course. > > >>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > > >>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > > >>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > > >>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > > >>>> the error? > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > > >>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > > >>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > > >>> as You think. > > >> > > >> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > > >> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > > >> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > > >>> > > > > > > Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > > > You have no clue about. > > > But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > > > is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > > > not able to get something out from Your theory - > > > unless You know precisely enough, what it should > > > be. > > > > > >>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > > >>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > > >>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > > >>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > > >>> him, than predictions of caesium. > > >>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > > >>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > > >>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > > >> > > >> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > > >> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > > >> will behave. > > > > > > Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > > > indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > > > No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > > > didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > > > > I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > > > > > > > >>>> How is that to be explained (away)? > > >>> > > >>> I don't care. Explain it as You wish - just > > >>> remember: if WE don't want it in OUR devices, > > >>> it IS an error. Your insane guru can do nothing > > >>> about it. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Since your clocks are objects, you're stuck with it. You can label it an > > >> error if you wish, but it's still there. > > > > > > Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > > > error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > > > known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > > > > > > > Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > > quantifies it. If you regard the reading of a clock on Earth as correct, > > then the theory tells you by how much you must adjust a clock in orbit > > so that it remains synchronised with your clock on Earth. > > > > The thing is, the theory doesn't say anything specific about clocks. > > Rather, it says something about time. It implies that your clock in > > orbit is working perfectly well, but that it is time itself that is > > different. That is, it's not just clocks that become unsynchronised, but > > everything and anything. > > > > Sylvia. > > Dear Sylvia, for the troll that is well beyond his limited knowledge (he works as a computer programmer). It's well beyond your limited knowledge (you work as an idiot physicist) but The Shit you're programmed is a really poor piece of software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <470dc3fe-435d-4361-be36-d2e028043427@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379052 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:55:32 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 15:19:31 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 15/03/2016 10:56 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 12:03:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >> On 15/03/2016 9:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 10:18:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>>> On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>>>>> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > >>>>>>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > > > >>>>>>> |limit. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > > > >>>>>>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> No, I don't. > > > >>>>>>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > > > >>>>>> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > > > >>>>>> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > > > >>>>>> standards because none are involved. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > > > >>>>>> said, or not? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> AFAIK - of course. > > > >>>>> And for normal people it means good, old, common, > > > >>>>> classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic > > > >>>> clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be > > > >>>> imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call > > > >>>> the error? > > > >>> > > > >>> Yes, it manages. Well, considering, that though > > > >>> the theory was conceived before, the prediction > > > >>> was so precisely made after - it's not as odd, > > > >>> as You think. > > > >> > > > >> The parameters (orbital, gravity due to the Earth, rate of rotation and > > > >> radius of same) are well defined. Plug them into the theory, and you get > > > >> a prediction. It's not as if the result can be fudged to fit. > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Of course it can. Reality, Sylvia. Something > > > > You have no clue about. > > > > But I didn't say it was. It's just Your theory > > > > is unusable. I've seen Your aces at work. You're > > > > not able to get something out from Your theory - > > > > unless You know precisely enough, what it should > > > > be. > > > > > > > >>> Anyway, if You take the Einstein paper of 1905, > > > >>> You won't find the word "caesium" there, but there > > > >>> is a lot of "clocks". That leads us to the conclusion, > > > >>> that predictions of clocks were more important for > > > >>> him, than predictions of caesium. > > > >>> And his predictions about clocks are completely > > > >>> worthless - no surprise, as he obviously didn't > > > >>> know, what is a clock and what it is for. > > > >> > > > >> The theory predicts how objects will behave in respect of space and > > > >> time. Since a real clock is an object, it also predicts how real clocks > > > >> will behave. > > > > > > > > Yes. And it doesn't match. Check at GPS. Clocks there > > > > indicate GPS time, instead Your predicted time dilation:( > > > > No surprise that Your guru has mistaken, as he obviously > > > > didn't know, what is a clock and what it is for. > > > > > > I have not the remotest idea what that's meant to mean. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> How is that to be explained (away)? > > > >>> > > > >>> I don't care. Explain it as You wish - just > > > >>> remember: if WE don't want it in OUR devices, > > > >>> it IS an error. Your insane guru can do nothing > > > >>> about it. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Since your clocks are objects, you're stuck with it. You can label it an > > > >> error if you wish, but it's still there. > > > > > > > > Yes, it's still there. It's only that "clock > > > > error" is a completely classical phenomena. Well > > > > known centuries before "discoveries" of Einstein... > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of what you call it, the general theory of relativity > > > quantifies it. If you regard the reading of a clock on Earth as correct, > > > then the theory tells you by how much you must adjust a clock in orbit > > > so that it remains synchronised with your clock on Earth. > > > > > > The thing is, the theory doesn't say anything specific about clocks. > > > Rather, it says something about time. It implies that your clock in > > > orbit is working perfectly well, but that it is time itself that is > > > different. That is, it's not just clocks that become unsynchronised, but > > > everything and anything. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Dear Sylvia, for the troll that is well beyond his limited knowledge (he works as a computer programmer). > > It's well beyond your limited knowledge (you work as an idiot physicist) > but The Shit you're programmed is a really poor piece of software. Hee hee, looks like paparios stepped on somebody's toe. The standard crank approach (it's not only Maciej's, it's all cranks) is that whatever they _happen_ to know (or even be experts in) is the only thing that counts. So for Koobee everything is a "Poisson equation", for Maciej everything is "a piece of software" or "models theory", and so on. None of those people bother learning much about the actual relevant theories. Why that is I don't know since obviously someone who _has_ managed to learn about Poisson's equation, etc., should clearly be able to catch up to GR, all that's needed is a bit of effort and time. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 20:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc9p9v$pi7$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379104 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:470dc3fe-435d-4361-be36-d2e028043427@googlegroups.com... |Hee hee, looks like paparios stepped on somebody's toe. The standard crank |approach (it's not only Maciej's, it's all cranks) is that whatever they |_happen_ to know (or even be experts in) is the only thing that counts. Yes,, morons like you always think, that except their Shit nothing matters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8efafc9-e1cd-4a14-a3f5-f1af2e3355c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379119 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:470dc3fe-435d-4361-be36-d2e028043427@googlegroups.com... > > |Hee hee, looks like paparios stepped on somebody's toe. The standard crank > |approach (it's not only Maciej's, it's all cranks) is that whatever they > |_happen_ to know (or even be experts in) is the only thing that counts. > > Yes,, morons like you always think, that except their Shit > nothing matters. You misunderstood. What I said was in order to criticise X one has to know X. What you are doing is critising X because of an irrelevant Z you happen to be familiar with. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 21:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc9s61$sep$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379125 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:b8efafc9-e1cd-4a14-a3f5-f1af2e3355c7@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:470dc3fe-435d-4361-be36-d2e028043427@googlegroups.com... > > |Hee hee, looks like paparios stepped on somebody's toe. The standard > crank > |approach (it's not only Maciej's, it's all cranks) is that whatever they > |_happen_ to know (or even be experts in) is the only thing that counts. > > Yes,, morons like you always think, that except their Shit > nothing matters. |You misunderstood. What I said was in order to criticise X one has to |know X. But, of course, to criticize Z one needs only to know that except The Shit of Great Guru everything is irrelevant, and that it's the Immutable Mathematical Truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b9271c6-4253-4ac2-9dc8-87f062db40a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379128 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 1:43:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:b8efafc9-e1cd-4a14-a3f5-f1af2e3355c7@googlegroups.com... > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:470dc3fe-435d-4361-be36-d2e028043427@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Hee hee, looks like paparios stepped on somebody's toe. The standard > > crank > > |approach (it's not only Maciej's, it's all cranks) is that whatever they > > |_happen_ to know (or even be experts in) is the only thing that counts. > > > > Yes,, morons like you always think, that except their Shit > > nothing matters. > > |You misunderstood. What I said was in order to criticise X one has to > |know X. > > But, of course, to criticize Z one needs only to know that except The Shit > of Great Guru everything is irrelevant, and that it's the Immutable > Mathematical Truth. Childish babble. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc9vdk$vld$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379132 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:3b9271c6-4253-4ac2-9dc8-87f062db40a2@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 1:43:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:b8efafc9-e1cd-4a14-a3f5-f1af2e3355c7@googlegroups.com... > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:470dc3fe-435d-4361-be36-d2e028043427@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Hee hee, looks like paparios stepped on somebody's toe. The standard > > crank > > |approach (it's not only Maciej's, it's all cranks) is that whatever > > they > > |_happen_ to know (or even be experts in) is the only thing that counts. > > > > Yes,, morons like you always think, that except their Shit > > nothing matters. > > |You misunderstood. What I said was in order to criticise X one has to > |know X. > > But, of course, to criticize Z one needs only to know that except The Shit > of Great Guru everything is irrelevant, and that it's the Immutable > Mathematical Truth. |Childish babble. Not even wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 16:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc9ub3$aav$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379125 |
On 3/15/2016 3:22 PM, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:470dc3fe-435d-4361-be36-d2e028043427@googlegroups.com... >> >> |Hee hee, looks like paparios stepped on somebody's toe. The standard crank >> |approach (it's not only Maciej's, it's all cranks) is that whatever they >> |_happen_ to know (or even be experts in) is the only thing that counts. >> >> Yes,, morons like you always think, that except their Shit >> nothing matters. > > You misunderstood. What I said was in order to criticise X one has to > know X. What you are doing is critising X because of an irrelevant Z you > happen to be familiar with. You're wasting your time, Jan. Maciej's sole purpose is to rant that what physicists do is worthless, trivially wrong, and completely dismissible, precisely BECAUSE it is not the subject area he's involved with. It's as pointless as a dentist telling a veterinarian that veterinary medicine is all wrong because they only thing that can be right is dentistry, and everything else is automatically wrong. Your claim, Jan, that one has to know physics in order to criticize physics, will fall on deaf ears because Maciej believes that everything other than what he does is automatically wrong. I suggest you let him fling spittle until the front of his shirt is soaked, and then he'll get up to go change it. That's when he'll find out it's his only shirt, and he has to sleep in it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f65e9fe8-d64b-4e1a-a7d3-efbc8b87fbd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379133 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 2:20:41 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/15/2016 3:22 PM, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > >> dyskusyjnych:470dc3fe-435d-4361-be36-d2e028043427@googlegroups.com... > >> > >> |Hee hee, looks like paparios stepped on somebody's toe. The standard crank > >> |approach (it's not only Maciej's, it's all cranks) is that whatever they > >> |_happen_ to know (or even be experts in) is the only thing that counts. > >> > >> Yes,, morons like you always think, that except their Shit > >> nothing matters. > > > > You misunderstood. What I said was in order to criticise X one has to > > know X. What you are doing is critising X because of an irrelevant Z you > > happen to be familiar with. > > You're wasting your time, Jan. Perhaps. For the record, my follow-ups to his posts as of New Year (more or less, I forget the exact date) are never meant for him to read. > Maciej's sole purpose is to rant [...] Yes. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 23:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nca0t0$1j1$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379137 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:f65e9fe8-d64b-4e1a-a7d3-efbc8b87fbd9@googlegroups.com... |Perhaps. For the record, my follow-ups to his posts as of New Year (more |or less, I forget the exact date) are never meant for him to read. :) A lie. As expected from a relativistic trash. Well, even stupider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 04:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac39d9bd-975f-4626-8d6c-3defd25e1443@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378545 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > Physics is about describing measurements. I'm happy to consider any > > proposed method of measuring time, but you seem unwilling to be pinned > > down on anything. The moment you suspect that's happening, you go back > > to this meaningless guru nonsense. > > You know, Sylvua, I'm one of these "earthbound observers" > You're despising so much. Do You get it? But you AREN'T an "observer": you are blind as an ostrich with its head in the sand. > You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. Nobody cares what you "do" with your head in the sand. > You're not interested in what I do. You finally got something right. Good for you! > You don't know, what I'm using clocks for. You don't understand, > what I'm using my clocks for. You're not interested in what I'm > using my clocks for. Nobody cares what a lunatic uses clocks for except psychiatrists. > You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. > > You're mad. What an ironic claim :-) “When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 06:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <720b1184-b253-4070-8ddd-6dcf2d0433e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378113 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 6:35:27 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>> > >>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > >>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > >>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > >>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > >>>>> ? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > >>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > >>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > >>> > >>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > >>> is different. > >>> > >> > >> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > >> relativity. > > > > Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > > > > In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock > from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. The orbiting clock second would have less duration than the ground clock second. To correct this the GPS designers redefined the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c973103b-1cfc-43a8-b5ae-f2ebe3a128ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378127 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:28:33 AM UTC-3, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 6:35:27 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>> > > >>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > > >>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > > >>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > > >>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > > >>>>> ? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > > >>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > > >>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > > >>> > > >>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > > >>> is different. > > >>> > > >> > > >> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > > >> relativity. > > > > > > Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > > > > > > > In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock > > from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. > > The orbiting clock second would have less duration than the ground clock second. To correct this the GPS designers redefined the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. Wrong Seto. The GPS satellite atomic clocks are unaffected by the orbit of the satellite. What changes is, again, the reading lecture of a measurement device receiving the sent signals from the orbiting satellite. The GPS satellite sent CDMA spread spectrum coded signals with a chip frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz, which are received on the ground as a CDMA spread spectrum coded signals with a chip frequency of 10.23 Mhz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 13:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f0ec318d-3444-493a-9417-dfa254cbb50d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378129 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:37:54 AM UTC-5, paparios wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:28:33 AM UTC-3, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 6:35:27 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 7/03/2016 10:11 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 11:32:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >> On 7/03/2016 8:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 09:46:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>> > > > >>>>> The subject still is: how many ticks of Cs atom > > > >>>>> oscillator it takes to switch a time unit in GPS > > > >>>>> clock. According to Your relativity, it should be > > > >>>>> the same amount as for a clock on Earth. > > > >>>>> ? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It takes the same number for the oscillator at the GPS to switch a time > > > >>>> unit at the GPS as it does for the oscillator on the ground to switch a > > > >>>> time unit on the ground. That has never been in dispute. > > > >>> > > > >>> 2xfalse. That was always in the dispute, and the number > > > >>> is different. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> The number can't be different. That would violate the principle of > > > >> relativity. > > > > > > > > Yes, it can. Yes it would. Yes, it does. > > > > > > > > > > In essence, you're saying that if you take a properly functioning clock > > > from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly. > > > > The orbiting clock second would have less duration than the ground clock second. To correct this the GPS designers redefined the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > Wrong Seto. The GPS satellite atomic clocks are unaffected by the orbit of the satellite. Wrong....The orbiting clock accumulates standard clock second at a faster rate than the ground clock second. To correct this they redefine the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This makes the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second. Also this makes the GPS accumulate redefined GPS seconds at the same rate as the ground clock accumulate standard clock seconds. What changes is, again, the reading lecture of a measurement device receiving the sent signals from the orbiting satellite. The GPS satellite sent CDMA spread spectrum coded signals with a chip frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz, which are received on the ground as a CDMA spread spectrum coded signals with a chip frequency of >10.23 Mhz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkuf3$247$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378214 |
kenseto wrote: >> Wrong Seto. The GPS satellite atomic clocks are unaffected by the orbit >> of the satellite. > > Wrong....The orbiting clock accumulates standard clock second at a > faster rate than the ground clock second. To correct this they redefine > the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This > makes the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the > passage of a standard ground clock second. Also this makes the GPS > accumulate redefined GPS seconds at the same rate as the ground clock > accumulate standard clock seconds. Absolutely correct, whatever you said. Except that they don't use Cs anymore to do the clock. They use something else, I can't remember what. Rubidium?? > What changes is, again, the reading lecture of a measurement device > receiving the sent signals from the orbiting satellite. The GPS > satellite sent CDMA spread spectrum coded signals with a chip frequency > of 10.2299999954326 MHz, which are received on the ground as a CDMA > spread spectrum coded signals with a chip frequency of >10.23 Mhz. Yes exactly, that difference is only used to interpret the local data, and nothing else. This is easily done in software. The updates from ground are there only to eliminate the drift, which as you wellknow, accumulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b27eea5e-9399-4387-918d-b20807ffff73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378221 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:14:01 PM UTC-5, François Theobaldus wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > >> Wrong Seto. The GPS satellite atomic clocks are unaffected by the orbit > >> of the satellite. > > > > Wrong....The orbiting clock accumulates standard clock second at a > > faster rate than the ground clock second. To correct this they redefine > > the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This > > makes the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the > > passage of a standard ground clock second. Also this makes the GPS > > accumulate redefined GPS seconds at the same rate as the ground clock > > accumulate standard clock seconds. > > Absolutely correct, whatever you said. Except that they don't use Cs > anymore to do the clock. They use something else, I can't remember what. > Rubidium?? The standard second remains 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. Using Rubidium doesn't change a thing. > > > What changes is, again, the reading lecture of a measurement device > > receiving the sent signals from the orbiting satellite. The GPS > > satellite sent CDMA spread spectrum coded signals with a chip frequency > > of 10.2299999954326 MHz, which are received on the ground as a CDMA > > spread spectrum coded signals with a chip frequency of >10.23 Mhz. > > Yes exactly, that difference is only used to interpret the local data, and > nothing else. This is easily done in software. The updates from ground are > there only to eliminate the drift, which as you wellknow, accumulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <adc0f30c-199f-4eac-acbb-b320049e999b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378238 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 05:07:00 UTC+1 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > > The standard second remains 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. Using Rubidium doesn't change a thing. No, Ken. You know, when You say "standard", it can be verified experimentally too. Standard second is related to Earth cycle. As it always was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web