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 9 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 23 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 03:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <22e1e2cd-83f3-4feb-81b7-93f99d63c621@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378260 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 11:46:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 8/03/2016 8:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 09:43:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 8/03/2016 7:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes. > >>>>>>>>> It needs a correction. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum > >>>>>>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater > >>>>>>> correction, than atomic one... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it > >>>>>> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for > >>>>>> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the > >>>>>> rate of a chemical reaction? > >>>>> > >>>>> How can I know? They're not even precise enough to > >>>>> check it. > >>>> > >>>> You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning > >>>> clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." > >>>> > >>>> What's special about the Earth? > >>> > >>> About 7 billion observers are living here. > >>> All observers we know about, with small > >>> exception of a few on ISS. > >>> And even more observers died here. > >>> > >> > >> Observers in space would not notice anything unusual about their clocks, > >> even if there were billions of observers. So the number of observers is > >> hardly the deciding factor. > > > > And observer on a street would notice trees, buildings > > and lanterns running around him - in Your dreams. > > > > Anyway, You've asked what special about Earth is. > > I've answerred. > > > > OK. > > What's relevantly special about Earth. > > Sylvia. About 7 billion observers are living here. All observers we know about, with small exception of a few on ISS. And even more observers died here. BTW, do You at least realize, that two observers placed in the same situation will almost for sure notice different things about it? You understand NOTHING. Samely as Your gurus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 22:39 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk7rutFu1kgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378261 |
On 8/03/2016 10:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 11:46:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 8/03/2016 8:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 09:43:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 8/03/2016 7:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> It needs a correction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum >>>>>>>>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater >>>>>>>>> correction, than atomic one... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it >>>>>>>> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for >>>>>>>> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the >>>>>>>> rate of a chemical reaction? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How can I know? They're not even precise enough to >>>>>>> check it. >>>>>> >>>>>> You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning >>>>>> clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." >>>>>> >>>>>> What's special about the Earth? >>>>> >>>>> About 7 billion observers are living here. >>>>> All observers we know about, with small >>>>> exception of a few on ISS. >>>>> And even more observers died here. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Observers in space would not notice anything unusual about their clocks, >>>> even if there were billions of observers. So the number of observers is >>>> hardly the deciding factor. >>> >>> And observer on a street would notice trees, buildings >>> and lanterns running around him - in Your dreams. >>> >>> Anyway, You've asked what special about Earth is. >>> I've answerred. >>> >> >> OK. >> >> What's relevantly special about Earth. >> >> Sylvia. > > About 7 billion observers are living here. > All observers we know about, with small > exception of a few on ISS. > And even more observers died here. > > BTW, do You at least realize, that two observers > placed in the same situation will almost for sure > notice different things about it? > You understand NOTHING. Samely as Your gurus. > And if we drew their attention to specifics, such as the relationship between force, mass, distance and time? Would they, being assumed competent observers, not agree about the relationship? Or can Earth bound observers not be trusted even that far? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 05:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10184a60-9a5b-4aaa-b156-75488b0b7337@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378262 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 12:39:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 8/03/2016 10:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 11:46:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 8/03/2016 8:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 09:43:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 8/03/2016 7:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. > >>>>>>>>>>> It needs a correction. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum > >>>>>>>>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater > >>>>>>>>> correction, than atomic one... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it > >>>>>>>> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for > >>>>>>>> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the > >>>>>>>> rate of a chemical reaction? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How can I know? They're not even precise enough to > >>>>>>> check it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning > >>>>>> clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What's special about the Earth? > >>>>> > >>>>> About 7 billion observers are living here. > >>>>> All observers we know about, with small > >>>>> exception of a few on ISS. > >>>>> And even more observers died here. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Observers in space would not notice anything unusual about their clocks, > >>>> even if there were billions of observers. So the number of observers is > >>>> hardly the deciding factor. > >>> > >>> And observer on a street would notice trees, buildings > >>> and lanterns running around him - in Your dreams. > >>> > >>> Anyway, You've asked what special about Earth is. > >>> I've answerred. > >>> > >> > >> OK. > >> > >> What's relevantly special about Earth. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > About 7 billion observers are living here. > > All observers we know about, with small > > exception of a few on ISS. > > And even more observers died here. > > > > BTW, do You at least realize, that two observers > > placed in the same situation will almost for sure > > notice different things about it? > > You understand NOTHING. Samely as Your gurus. > > > > And if we drew their attention to specifics, such as the relationship > between force, mass, distance and time? Would they, being assumed > competent observers, not agree about the relationship? > > Or can Earth bound observers not be trusted even that far? Sylvia, think a little. What would we achieve, if our competent people said always the same? We can always trust Earth bound observers that some of them will think. Can Your imagined twins think? No? That's why You can trust they will always say what Great Guru told them to say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 11:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk989kFb2k5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378263 |
On 9/03/2016 12:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 12:39:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 8/03/2016 10:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 11:46:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 8/03/2016 8:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 09:43:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 8/03/2016 7:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It needs a correction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum >>>>>>>>>>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater >>>>>>>>>>> correction, than atomic one... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it >>>>>>>>>> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for >>>>>>>>>> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the >>>>>>>>>> rate of a chemical reaction? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How can I know? They're not even precise enough to >>>>>>>>> check it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning >>>>>>>> clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's special about the Earth? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About 7 billion observers are living here. >>>>>>> All observers we know about, with small >>>>>>> exception of a few on ISS. >>>>>>> And even more observers died here. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Observers in space would not notice anything unusual about their clocks, >>>>>> even if there were billions of observers. So the number of observers is >>>>>> hardly the deciding factor. >>>>> >>>>> And observer on a street would notice trees, buildings >>>>> and lanterns running around him - in Your dreams. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, You've asked what special about Earth is. >>>>> I've answerred. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>> What's relevantly special about Earth. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> About 7 billion observers are living here. >>> All observers we know about, with small >>> exception of a few on ISS. >>> And even more observers died here. >>> >>> BTW, do You at least realize, that two observers >>> placed in the same situation will almost for sure >>> notice different things about it? >>> You understand NOTHING. Samely as Your gurus. >>> >> >> And if we drew their attention to specifics, such as the relationship >> between force, mass, distance and time? Would they, being assumed >> competent observers, not agree about the relationship? >> >> Or can Earth bound observers not be trusted even that far? > > Sylvia, think a little. What would we achieve, if > our competent people said always the same? > We can always trust Earth bound observers that some > of them will think. > Can Your imagined twins think? No? That's why > You can trust they will always say what Great Guru > told them to say. > There is definitely going to be *some* relationship between force, mass, distance and time. It's not something that's a matter of opinion. Whatever the relationship is, competent observers should agree on it, since otherwise at least some of them would be wrong, and consequently not entitled to the description competent. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 23:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e154bfb5-c8c8-478b-bf38-32217e981dea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378314 |
W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 01:15:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/03/2016 12:15 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 12:39:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 8/03/2016 10:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 11:46:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 8/03/2016 8:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 09:43:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 8/03/2016 7:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 08:49:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 8/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 01:04:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 11:38 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:59:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 10:48 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:35:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It needs a correction. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The same correction regardless of the kind of clock? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, of curse. For instance, if You take a pendulum > >>>>>>>>>>> clock into a satellite, it will need a much greater > >>>>>>>>>>> correction, than atomic one... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It won't be a matter of applying a correction to a pendulum clock - it > >>>>>>>>>> just won't work. What about clocks that do not depend on gravity for > >>>>>>>>>> their function, such as a balance wheel, or one that is based on the > >>>>>>>>>> rate of a chemical reaction? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How can I know? They're not even precise enough to > >>>>>>>>> check it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You agreed with my proposition that "if you take a properly functioning > >>>>>>>> clock from Earth and put it into orbit, it no longer functions properly." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What's special about the Earth? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> About 7 billion observers are living here. > >>>>>>> All observers we know about, with small > >>>>>>> exception of a few on ISS. > >>>>>>> And even more observers died here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Observers in space would not notice anything unusual about their clocks, > >>>>>> even if there were billions of observers. So the number of observers is > >>>>>> hardly the deciding factor. > >>>>> > >>>>> And observer on a street would notice trees, buildings > >>>>> and lanterns running around him - in Your dreams. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anyway, You've asked what special about Earth is. > >>>>> I've answerred. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> OK. > >>>> > >>>> What's relevantly special about Earth. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> About 7 billion observers are living here. > >>> All observers we know about, with small > >>> exception of a few on ISS. > >>> And even more observers died here. > >>> > >>> BTW, do You at least realize, that two observers > >>> placed in the same situation will almost for sure > >>> notice different things about it? > >>> You understand NOTHING. Samely as Your gurus. > >>> > >> > >> And if we drew their attention to specifics, such as the relationship > >> between force, mass, distance and time? Would they, being assumed > >> competent observers, not agree about the relationship? > >> > >> Or can Earth bound observers not be trusted even that far? > > > > Sylvia, think a little. What would we achieve, if > > our competent people said always the same? > > We can always trust Earth bound observers that some > > of them will think. > > Can Your imagined twins think? No? That's why > > You can trust they will always say what Great Guru > > told them to say. > > > > There is definitely going to be *some* relationship between force, mass, > distance and time. It's not something that's a matter of opinion. As I've said, You understand nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. And even Your Great Guru could tell You You're wrong. > Whatever the relationship is, competent observers should agree on it The result of an observation is text. We don't need many texts denying each other. We need a single text, as consistent as possible. Yes, competent observers should agree. After a hard work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dka4u8FhgjpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378343 |
On 9/03/2016 6:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 01:15:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> >> There is definitely going to be *some* relationship between force, mass, >> distance and time. It's not something that's a matter of opinion. > > Yes, competent observers should agree. After > a hard work. > Like getting blood from a stone. Yes, the hard work involves doing lots of experiments to determine how these things are related. In the process, they'll have to agree on some arbitrary quantities, of which one such is the length of the second. Since it is arbitrary, they should have no difficulty accepting that it's 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. With me so far?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 01:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9ca04f2d-ac44-4f91-961a-65c14c173d02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378353 |
W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 09:24:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/03/2016 6:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 01:15:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> > >> There is definitely going to be *some* relationship between force, mass, > >> distance and time. It's not something that's a matter of opinion. > > > > Yes, competent observers should agree. After > > a hard work. > > > > Like getting blood from a stone. > > Yes, the hard work involves doing lots of experiments to determine how > these things are related. No. You understand nothing, and this hard work is something else. > arbitrary quantities, of which one such is the length of the second. > Since it is arbitrary, they should have no difficulty accepting that > it's 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the > transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the > caesium-133 atom. Well, comerade Lenin would say that as "good" is arbitrary, one shouldn't have a problem with accepting communism as the best. Wouldn't he? You understand nothing. No, Your "second" will NEVER be accepted as time unit by anyone sane. It would make our clocks unsynchronizing and indicating time dilation... and the most important functionality of our clocks is to keep us synchronized. Yeah. Our clocks are not toys created for the fun of Great Guru and his friends. And this is something You're unable to undeerstand. > With me so far? No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkaf7pFk5ghU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378355 |
On 9/03/2016 8:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 09:24:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 9/03/2016 6:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 01:15:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> >>>> There is definitely going to be *some* relationship between force, mass, >>>> distance and time. It's not something that's a matter of opinion. >>> >>> Yes, competent observers should agree. After >>> a hard work. >>> >> >> Like getting blood from a stone. >> >> Yes, the hard work involves doing lots of experiments to determine how >> these things are related. > > No. You understand nothing, and this hard work > is something else. They reach agreement without doing lots of experiments? What kind of competent observers are they? So what do they do? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 03:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c10331c5-fbbb-41de-b04b-0af38af64dff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378358 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:20:29 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/03/2016 8:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 09:24:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 9/03/2016 6:33 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 01:15:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> > >>>> There is definitely going to be *some* relationship between force, mass, > >>>> distance and time. It's not something that's a matter of opinion. > >>> > >>> Yes, competent observers should agree. After > >>> a hard work. > >>> > >> > >> Like getting blood from a stone. > >> > >> Yes, the hard work involves doing lots of experiments to determine how > >> these things are related. > > > > No. You understand nothing, and this hard work > > is something else. > > They reach agreement without doing lots of experiments? What kind of > competent observers are they? So what do they do? > > Sylvia. It should be clear by now that the troll is not interested in carrying a normal conversation with you. For him, we are just "idiots and fools" following "the Shit".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 03:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <215e828b-722d-4a88-b4f2-ed134be4c535@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378359 |
W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 12:46:15 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > It should be clear by now that the troll is not interested in carrying a normal conversation with you. For him, we are just "idiots and fools" following "the Shit". Exactly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 04:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36807496-9110-482c-85aa-b53c41470a43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378361 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:54:24 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 12:46:15 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > It should be clear by now that the troll is not interested in carrying a normal conversation with you. For him, we are just "idiots and fools" following "the Shit". > > Exactly. Case closed!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 05:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c6436d8-0b82-44a5-b8e2-5fd542843adb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378362 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:00:33 AM UTC-7, paparios wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:54:24 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 12:46:15 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > It should be clear by now that the troll is not interested in carrying > > > a normal conversation with you. For him, we are just "idiots and fools" > > > following "the Shit". > > > > Exactly. > > Case closed! Yep, mlwo and his alter ego, Wozniak, are either stupid or abysmally dishonest. These are only two possibilities. Well, maybe one of them is stupid and the other one dishonest :-) That would make him schizophrenic, too, wouldn't it :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 05:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <96ff2454-5a81-483c-81c7-c9abfd0852fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378365 |
W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 14:00:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:00:33 AM UTC-7, paparios wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:54:24 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 12:46:15 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > > > It should be clear by now that the troll is not interested in carrying > > > > a normal conversation with you. For him, we are just "idiots and fools" > > > > following "the Shit". > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > Case closed! > > Yep, mlwo and his alter ego, Wozniak, are either stupid or abysmally > dishonest. These are only two possibilities. Well, maybe one of them > is stupid and the other one dishonest :-) > > That would make him schizophrenic, too, wouldn't it :-) Rave, morron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 05:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fbd927a8-cb86-4b50-bc1c-0edab772613a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378368 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 6:32:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 14:00:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > Yep, mlwo and his alter ego, Wozniak, are either stupid or abysmally > > dishonest. These are only two possibilities. Well, maybe one of them > > is stupid and the other one dishonest :-) > > > > That would make him schizophrenic, too, wouldn't it :-) > > Rave, morron, and spit. What else can you do. I can identify EXACTLY what you are, besides a regurgitating idiot :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de192995-fdd7-47a9-b57e-d948f93c0f3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378365 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:00:33 AM UTC-7, paparios wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:54:24 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 12:46:15 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > > > It should be clear by now that the troll is not interested in carrying > > > > a normal conversation with you. For him, we are just "idiots and fools" > > > > following "the Shit". > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > Case closed! > > Yep, mlwo and his alter ego, Wozniak, are either stupid or abysmally > dishonest. These are only two possibilities. Well, maybe one of them > is stupid and the other one dishonest :-) > > That would make him schizophrenic, too, wouldn't it :-) I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of autism or Asperger's. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2539b551-467a-46b4-be0f-2253c391dc8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378446 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:39:39 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Yep, mlwo and his alter ego, Wozniak, are either stupid or abysmally > > dishonest. These are only two possibilities. Well, maybe one of them > > is stupid and the other one dishonest :-) > > > > That would make him schizophrenic, too, wouldn't it :-) > > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of autism > or Asperger's. > > -- > Jan Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 21:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e969af56-70f7-457b-87f8-a8a42240689d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378447 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:47:33 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:39:39 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > Yep, mlwo and his alter ego, Wozniak, are either stupid or abysmally > > > dishonest. These are only two possibilities. Well, maybe one of them > > > is stupid and the other one dishonest :-) > > > > > > That would make him schizophrenic, too, wouldn't it :-) > > > > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of autism > > or Asperger's. > > > > -- > > Jan > > Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor > isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. > > Gary I don't know. But he is typical. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f6be1f0-b9b8-4733-91c2-4e4c1538df70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378447 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:47:33 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:39:39 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > Yep, mlwo and his alter ego, Wozniak, are either stupid or abysmally > > > dishonest. These are only two possibilities. Well, maybe one of them > > > is stupid and the other one dishonest :-) > > > > > > That would make him schizophrenic, too, wouldn't it :-) > > > > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of autism > > or Asperger's. > > > > -- > > Jan > > Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor > isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. > > Gary Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while in adulthood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbs9jj$16hc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378483 |
David Waite wrote: >> > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of >> > autism or Asperger's. -- Jan >> >> Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor >> isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary > > Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while > in adulthood. He don't understand tensors. But he is good algebraically, when he manage to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 09:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20185e4d-b4b5-4691-b369-8d0d194ad0ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378484 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:07:54 AM UTC-7, Luigi Durante wrote: > David Waite wrote: > > >> > I don't think it's schizophrenia. It looks more like a degree of > >> > autism or Asperger's. -- Jan > >> > >> Does he belong in an institution then, like Pentcho? I hope his doctor > >> isn't the one that told him to go online for therapy. Gary > > > > Yeah, but you do to. After all you do talk to an imaginary friend while > > in adulthood. > > He don't understand tensors. But he is good algebraically, when he manage > to do that. When someone is so insane that he talks to an imaginary friend while in adulthood, whether he can to any level of math or physics becomes irrelevant because he can not think rationally enough to be taken seriously about anything but his immoral religious beliefs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web