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 14 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 23 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 18:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e2b2194b-ad82-4f03-9e68-e3c2595e39c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378669 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:28:56 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 11/03/2016 11:38 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:25:03 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > People have attempted to ensure that we're talking about devices that > > > exactly measure the passage of time, as distinct from devices that > > > suffer from various practical limitations making them less than > > > perfectly accurate. This is done in an, apparently forlorn, attempt to > > > prevent discussions being derailed by irrelevancies, especially by > > > people who actively seek to derail discussions. > > > > Wozzie seems to have ODD: > > > > http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-defiant-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20024559 > > > > Apparently, he has never progressed beyond his teenage years. > > > > > The expression "proper time" is the accepted way of describing the > > > passage of time at a place and velocity as it would be measured by an > > > exact clock positioned at that place and having that velocity. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > You have been most respectful of him. I applaud your patience, and you > > have to admit, he is ODD :-) > > I'm certainly running out of ideas when it comes to trying to > communicate ideas to him. We seem unable to agree even on the meaning of > some very basic words and expressions. At the last count, even the > meaning of the word "second" appears to be in question. > > Sylvia. He's doing it on purpose, just like the miserable troll he is. He is quite ODD :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 00:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4c6fe4d-64f0-4032-bdc4-036327f3d51b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378529 |
W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, > >>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the > >>>>>>> hell is that? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's not what I said. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. > >>>>> Standard approach in relativity. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. > >>>>> > >>>>> No. We need more. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time > >>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit > >>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. > >>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns > >>>>> running around him on the street. > >>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, > >>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. > >>>>> > >>>>> You understand nothing. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should > >>>> specify the length of their time unit? > >>> > >>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. > >>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and > >>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T > >>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice > >>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. > >>> > >>> Other things can be talked about. > >>> > >> > >> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational > >> discussion. > > > > > > As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of > > rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking > > ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. > > > > It doesn't matter, however, because first we would > > have to agree about basics stated above. > > 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? You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. You're not interested in what I do. 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. You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. You're mad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 19:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkfeg3Fd8ctU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378545 |
On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, >>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the >>>>>>>>> hell is that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not what I said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. >>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. We need more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time >>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit >>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. >>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns >>>>>>> running around him on the street. >>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, >>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You understand nothing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should >>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? >>>>> >>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. >>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and >>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T >>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice >>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. >>>>> >>>>> Other things can be talked about. >>>>> >>>> >>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational >>>> discussion. >>> >>> >>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of >>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking >>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. >>> >>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would >>> have to agree about basics stated above. >> >> 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? > You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. > You're not interested in what I do. > 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. > You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. > > You're mad. What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. So regardless of what you actually want to use it for, we can still discuss its behaviour in terms of successive readouts (in whatever form). Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 01:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5fa38792-ce78-497c-bca4-c3fb5d4fa621@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378547 |
W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:38:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, > >>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the > >>>>>>>>> hell is that? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's not what I said. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. > >>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No. We need more. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time > >>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit > >>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. > >>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns > >>>>>>> running around him on the street. > >>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, > >>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You understand nothing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should > >>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? > >>>>> > >>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. > >>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and > >>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T > >>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice > >>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. > >>>>> > >>>>> Other things can be talked about. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational > >>>> discussion. > >>> > >>> > >>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of > >>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking > >>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. > >>> > >>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would > >>> have to agree about basics stated above. > >> > >> 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? > > You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. > > You're not interested in what I do. > > 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. > > You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. > > > > You're mad. > > What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. > That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. That's how the world of Your dreams goes. Reality is different. Full of those pesky earthbound observers making clocks as they want to, not as You want to and ruining Your brilliant, symmetrical concepts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 21:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkfl3vFettpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378552 |
On 11/03/2016 8:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:38:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, >>>>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the >>>>>>>>>>> hell is that? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. >>>>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. We need more. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time >>>>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit >>>>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. >>>>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns >>>>>>>>> running around him on the street. >>>>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, >>>>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You understand nothing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should >>>>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. >>>>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and >>>>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T >>>>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice >>>>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other things can be talked about. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational >>>>>> discussion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of >>>>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking >>>>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would >>>>> have to agree about basics stated above. >>>> >>>> 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? >>> You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. >>> You're not interested in what I do. >>> 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. >>> You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. >>> >>> You're mad. >> >> What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. >> That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. > > That's how the world of Your dreams goes. > Reality is different. Full of those pesky > earthbound observers making clocks as they > want to, not as You want to and ruining > Your brilliant, symmetrical concepts. Describe a clock made by an earthbound observer. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 02:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ca60763-ad16-4f96-973e-6acbb5355c30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378558 |
W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 11:31:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 11/03/2016 8:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:38:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, > >>>>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the > >>>>>>>>>>> hell is that? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. > >>>>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No. We need more. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time > >>>>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit > >>>>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. > >>>>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns > >>>>>>>>> running around him on the street. > >>>>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, > >>>>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You understand nothing. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should > >>>>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. > >>>>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and > >>>>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T > >>>>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice > >>>>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Other things can be talked about. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational > >>>>>> discussion. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of > >>>>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking > >>>>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. > >>>>> > >>>>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would > >>>>> have to agree about basics stated above. > >>>> > >>>> 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? > >>> You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. > >>> You're not interested in what I do. > >>> 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. > >>> You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. > >>> > >>> You're mad. > >> > >> What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. > >> That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. > > > > That's how the world of Your dreams goes. > > Reality is different. Full of those pesky > > earthbound observers making clocks as they > > want to, not as You want to and ruining > > Your brilliant, symmetrical concepts. > > Describe a clock made by an earthbound observer. > :) https://www.google.pl/search?q=clock&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE1-3Wt7jLAhXFbZoKHevaBIwQsAQIGw&biw=1290&bih=939
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 22:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkfngaFfh3iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378559 |
On 11/03/2016 9:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 11:31:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 11/03/2016 8:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:38:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, >>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the >>>>>>>>>>>>> hell is that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. >>>>>>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. We need more. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit >>>>>>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. >>>>>>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns >>>>>>>>>>> running around him on the street. >>>>>>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, >>>>>>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You understand nothing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should >>>>>>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. >>>>>>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and >>>>>>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T >>>>>>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice >>>>>>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other things can be talked about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of >>>>>>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking >>>>>>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would >>>>>>> have to agree about basics stated above. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>> You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. >>>>> You're not interested in what I do. >>>>> 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. >>>>> You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. >>>>> >>>>> You're mad. >>>> >>>> What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. >>>> That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. >>> >>> That's how the world of Your dreams goes. >>> Reality is different. Full of those pesky >>> earthbound observers making clocks as they >>> want to, not as You want to and ruining >>> Your brilliant, symmetrical concepts. >> >> Describe a clock made by an earthbound observer. >> > :) > https://www.google.pl/search?q=clock&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE1-3Wt7jLAhXFbZoKHevaBIwQsAQIGw&biw=1290&bih=939 > Subject to the limitations with their accuracy, those clocks will measure proper time. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 03:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbc463d3-fb3b-4202-9f46-6ca6241adfd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378561 |
W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 12:12:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 11/03/2016 9:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 11:31:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 11/03/2016 8:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:38:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hell is that? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. > >>>>>>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No. We need more. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time > >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit > >>>>>>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. > >>>>>>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns > >>>>>>>>>>> running around him on the street. > >>>>>>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, > >>>>>>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You understand nothing. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should > >>>>>>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. > >>>>>>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and > >>>>>>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T > >>>>>>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice > >>>>>>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Other things can be talked about. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational > >>>>>>>> discussion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of > >>>>>>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking > >>>>>>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would > >>>>>>> have to agree about basics stated above. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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? > >>>>> You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. > >>>>> You're not interested in what I do. > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. > >>>>> > >>>>> You're mad. > >>>> > >>>> What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. > >>>> That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. > >>> > >>> That's how the world of Your dreams goes. > >>> Reality is different. Full of those pesky > >>> earthbound observers making clocks as they > >>> want to, not as You want to and ruining > >>> Your brilliant, symmetrical concepts. > >> > >> Describe a clock made by an earthbound observer. > >> > > :) > > https://www.google.pl/search?q=clock&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE1-3Wt7jLAhXFbZoKHevaBIwQsAQIGw&biw=1290&bih=939 > > > > Subject to the limitations with their accuracy, those clocks will > measure proper time. No, they won't. We, earthbounnd observers, are using unproper unit:( And tools for measuring time in the real world looks like that: https://www.google.pl/search?q=stopwatch+pictures&biw=1290&bih=939&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX19PMw7jLAhVqD5oKHey1BZ0QsAQIGg Can You see a difference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 22:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkfoupFfu7cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378562 |
On 11/03/2016 10:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 12:12:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 11/03/2016 9:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 11:31:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 11/03/2016 8:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:38:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hell is that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. We need more. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit >>>>>>>>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns >>>>>>>>>>>>> running around him on the street. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, >>>>>>>>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand nothing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should >>>>>>>>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. >>>>>>>>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and >>>>>>>>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T >>>>>>>>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice >>>>>>>>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Other things can be talked about. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational >>>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of >>>>>>>>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking >>>>>>>>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would >>>>>>>>> have to agree about basics stated above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. >>>>>>> You're not interested in what I do. >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're mad. >>>>>> >>>>>> What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. >>>>>> That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. >>>>> >>>>> That's how the world of Your dreams goes. >>>>> Reality is different. Full of those pesky >>>>> earthbound observers making clocks as they >>>>> want to, not as You want to and ruining >>>>> Your brilliant, symmetrical concepts. >>>> >>>> Describe a clock made by an earthbound observer. >>>> >>> :) >>> https://www.google.pl/search?q=clock&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE1-3Wt7jLAhXFbZoKHevaBIwQsAQIGw&biw=1290&bih=939 >>> >> >> Subject to the limitations with their accuracy, those clocks will >> measure proper time. > > No, they won't. We, earthbounnd observers, are using > unproper unit:( > And tools for measuring time in the real world looks like that: > https://www.google.pl/search?q=stopwatch+pictures&biw=1290&bih=939&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX19PMw7jLAhVqD5oKHey1BZ0QsAQIGg > Can You see a difference? > The difference is that the former measure time continuously, whereas the latter are adapted to measuring time from one moment to some other moment. They all measure proper time (or as near as they can get within economic and technical constraints) when they're operating, because the users want something that, as nearly as possible, performs as would a perfectly accurate clock. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 04:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0715472a-2911-45a3-8d6a-fc51d861c07c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378563 |
W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 12:37:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 11/03/2016 10:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 12:12:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 11/03/2016 9:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 11:31:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 11/03/2016 8:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:38:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hell is that? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. We need more. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns > >>>>>>>>>>>>> running around him on the street. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand nothing. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should > >>>>>>>>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. > >>>>>>>>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and > >>>>>>>>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T > >>>>>>>>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice > >>>>>>>>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Other things can be talked about. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational > >>>>>>>>>> discussion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of > >>>>>>>>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking > >>>>>>>>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would > >>>>>>>>> have to agree about basics stated above. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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? > >>>>>>> You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. > >>>>>>> You're not interested in what I do. > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>> You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You're mad. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. > >>>>>> That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. > >>>>> > >>>>> That's how the world of Your dreams goes. > >>>>> Reality is different. Full of those pesky > >>>>> earthbound observers making clocks as they > >>>>> want to, not as You want to and ruining > >>>>> Your brilliant, symmetrical concepts. > >>>> > >>>> Describe a clock made by an earthbound observer. > >>>> > >>> :) > >>> https://www.google.pl/search?q=clock&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE1-3Wt7jLAhXFbZoKHevaBIwQsAQIGw&biw=1290&bih=939 > >>> > >> > >> Subject to the limitations with their accuracy, those clocks will > >> measure proper time. > > > > No, they won't. We, earthbounnd observers, are using > > unproper unit:( > > And tools for measuring time in the real world looks like that: > > https://www.google.pl/search?q=stopwatch+pictures&biw=1290&bih=939&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX19PMw7jLAhVqD5oKHey1BZ0QsAQIGg > > Can You see a difference? > > > The difference is that the former measure time continuously, whereas the > latter are adapted to measuring time from one moment to some other moment. The difference is: the former is working in a day cycle and is synchronized with others. It's not a time measurer, it's a coordinate generator. But I don't expect You to understand it. You're just a mere physicist. What can You know about functionality. > They all measure proper time No, they don't. We, earthbound observers, are using a different unit. Check the meaning of "second" - not in wiki or one of Your books, but in common English dictionary. Will You? > and technical constraints) when they're operating, because the users > want something that, as nearly as possible, performs as would a > perfectly accurate clock. Unfortunately, "perfectly" can mean different things. And it does at this case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 11:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkh7b1FroaiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378565 |
On 11/03/2016 11:00 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 12:37:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 11/03/2016 10:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 12:12:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 11/03/2016 9:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 11:31:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 11/03/2016 8:05 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 09:38:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 11/03/2016 7:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 01:54:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 11:50 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 12:49:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 8:18 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 09:30:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 5:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, my question. Your logic "as it's arbitrary, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone should obey our decisions" - what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hell is that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, You're wrong. Again. That's what You said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standard approach in relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the choice is arbitrary, we just need a convenient number. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. We need more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Competent observers will see that there is no purpose spending time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing about the particular number chosen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right. No competent observer will ever accept Your unit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time, regardless this particular number chosen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samely, as no observer will ever notice trees and lanterns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running around him on the street. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not noticing them Yourself. And, samely, when in real, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not theoretical mode, You're using another unit of time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand nothing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The observers need a unit of time. How do you think the observers should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify the length of their time unit? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not thinking in such cathegories, but I do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time, as Your guru said, is a coordinate, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> its main function is - to coordinate. We WON"T >>>>>>>>>>>>> unsynchronize our clocks just to achieve nice >>>>>>>>>>>>> symmetry enjoying You and Your friends. Never. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other things can be talked about. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To what end? You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of rational >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As You're for sure incapable of engaging in any kind of >>>>>>>>>>> rational discussion (obvious with a fanatic lacking >>>>>>>>>>> ANY arguments) - well, probably to the dead end. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter, however, because first we would >>>>>>>>>>> have to agree about basics stated above. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> You don't know, what I do. You don't understand, what I do. >>>>>>>>> You're not interested in what I do. >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> You're just issuing a "standard" I should set them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're mad. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What you use it for is neither here nor there. A clock measures time. >>>>>>>> That's what it does. If it doesn't measure time, it's not a clock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's how the world of Your dreams goes. >>>>>>> Reality is different. Full of those pesky >>>>>>> earthbound observers making clocks as they >>>>>>> want to, not as You want to and ruining >>>>>>> Your brilliant, symmetrical concepts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Describe a clock made by an earthbound observer. >>>>>> >>>>> :) >>>>> https://www.google.pl/search?q=clock&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE1-3Wt7jLAhXFbZoKHevaBIwQsAQIGw&biw=1290&bih=939 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Subject to the limitations with their accuracy, those clocks will >>>> measure proper time. >>> >>> No, they won't. We, earthbounnd observers, are using >>> unproper unit:( >>> And tools for measuring time in the real world looks like that: >>> https://www.google.pl/search?q=stopwatch+pictures&biw=1290&bih=939&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX19PMw7jLAhVqD5oKHey1BZ0QsAQIGg >>> Can You see a difference? >>> >> The difference is that the former measure time continuously, whereas the >> latter are adapted to measuring time from one moment to some other moment. > > The difference is: the former is working in a day cycle > and is synchronized with others. > It's not a time measurer, it's a coordinate generator. > But I don't expect You to understand it. > You're just a mere physicist. What can You know about > functionality. > > >> They all measure proper time > > No, they don't. We, earthbound observers, > are using a different unit. > Check the meaning of "second" - not in wiki > or one of Your books, but in common English > dictionary. Will You? Sixtieth of a minute, which is a sixtieth of an hour, which is a twenty-fourth part of a day and night. Except that it's not. Even you earthbound observers use an average, rather than letting it vary quite a lot during the year. Which is good enough for most purposes, but the Earth's rotation varies a bit, changing the average length of a day and night in unpredictable ways. Not by much, but enough to be measurable by those with accurate instruments. Since it's unpredictable, there's no way a clock could be constructed that would keep track automatically. In any case, having a second whose length varies, even ever so slightly, is unhelpful. So instead those who are concerned about such things decided to redefine a second in a way that gives it a length that's the same as the average length of a second when defined the old way (as near as can be determined, given that the long-term average is inherently unknowable). Thus we end up with the Caesium standard. A clock using the Caesium standard gives seconds of the same length as the original definition for almost all practical purposes. The only people who can detect a difference are those operating extremely accurate clocks. So on what basis, other than sheer bloody-mindedness, are you objecting to this definition? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 10:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc0ng4$dnp$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378671 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dkh7b1FroaiU1@mid.individual.net... > No, they don't. We, earthbound observers, > are using a different unit. > Check the meaning of "second" - not in wiki > or one of Your books, but in common English > dictionary. Will You? |Sixtieth of a minute, which is a sixtieth of an hour, which is a |twenty-fourth part of a day and night. |Except that it's not. Yes, it is. |Even you earthbound observers use an average, |rather than letting it vary quite a lot during the year. Yes, we are. If You insist that average day isn't a day, prove it. |Which is good enough for most purposes, Yes, it is. In opposition to Your unsynchronizing, revolutionary, proper idiocy. | but the Earth's rotation varies |a bit, changing the average length of a day and night in unpredictable |ways. Not by much, but enough to be measurable by those with accurate |instruments. Since it's unpredictable, there's no way a clock could be |constructed that would keep track automatically. Fortunately, we're here to mantain our devices sometimes. |In any case, having a |second whose length varies, even ever so slightly, is unhelpful. Wrong. It's very helpful, in opposition to unsynchronized clocks. Reality is really bigger, than Your pitiful sandpit. |So |instead those who are concerned about such things decided to redefine a Let them buzz off. They're unable even to understand, what real clocks are made for. Samely as You are. |A clock using the Caesium standard gives seconds of the same length No, it doesn't. Check at GPS. Or in Your beloved twins paradox. And that's exactly, what the problem is. Most of us are stupid enough to buy a naked emperor for a short time, but not all of us. In a long term You have no chance. Your "standard" won't pass. |So on what basis, other than sheer bloody-mindedness, are you objecting |to this definition? I've told You 5 or 6 times already. A waste of time, but maybe someone else will get it. Your "perfect, proper, standard clocks " UNSYNCHRONIZE. So, buzz off, together with them and Your fine definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 21:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dki9m5F54euU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378692 |
On 12/03/2016 8:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dkh7b1FroaiU1@mid.individual.net... > >> No, they don't. We, earthbound observers, >> are using a different unit. >> Check the meaning of "second" - not in wiki >> or one of Your books, but in common English >> dictionary. Will You? > > |Sixtieth of a minute, which is a sixtieth of an hour, which is a > |twenty-fourth part of a day and night. > |Except that it's not. > > Yes, it is. > > |Even you earthbound observers use an average, > |rather than letting it vary quite a lot during the year. > > Yes, we are. If You insist that average day isn't a day, > prove it. > > |Which is good enough for most purposes, > > Yes, it is. In opposition to Your unsynchronizing, > revolutionary, proper idiocy. > > > | but the Earth's rotation varies > |a bit, changing the average length of a day and night in unpredictable > |ways. Not by much, but enough to be measurable by those with accurate > |instruments. Since it's unpredictable, there's no way a clock could be > |constructed that would keep track automatically. > > Fortunately, we're here to mantain our devices sometimes. > > > |In any case, having a > |second whose length varies, even ever so slightly, is unhelpful. > > Wrong. It's very helpful, in opposition to unsynchronized > clocks. > Reality is really bigger, than Your pitiful sandpit. > > > |So > |instead those who are concerned about such things decided to redefine a > > Let them buzz off. They're unable even to understand, what > real clocks are made for. Samely as You are. > > |A clock using the Caesium standard gives seconds of the same length > > No, it doesn't. Check at GPS. It does at a GPS satellite too. Very accurately. > Or in Your beloved twins > paradox. And that's exactly, what the problem is. > Most of us are stupid enough to buy a naked > emperor for a short time, but not all of us. In a long > term You have no chance. Your "standard" won't pass. If we imagine two clocks - one that uses the average day as a basis, and one that uses the caesium standard - then they'll run at almost identical rates on Earth, because the caesium standard was set so that they would. If you then put them both next to a GPS satellite, they'll still run at almost identical rates. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 11:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc0sor$ior$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378704 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dki9m5F54euU1@mid.individual.net... > |A clock using the Caesium standard gives seconds of the same length > > No, it doesn't. Check at GPS. |It does at a GPS satellite too. Very accurately. Really? So, how much of Your "standard" seconds from Earth takes Your "standard" second from a satellite? As I've said, most of us are stupid enough to buy a naked emperor for a short time, but not all of us. In a long term You have no chance. Your "standard" won't pass. > Or in Your beloved twins > paradox. And that's exactly, what the problem is. > Most of us are stupid enough to buy a naked > emperor for a short time, but not all of us. In a long > term You have no chance. Your "standard" won't pass. |If we imagine two clocks - one that uses the average day as a basis, and |one that uses the caesium standard - then they'll run at almost |identical rates on Earth, because the caesium standard was set so that |they would. |If you then put them both next to a GPS satellite, they'll still run at |almost identical rates. "Almost" sometimes means a big difference. Imagine now Your famous twins. Imagine that one of them counts time in Earth days while the other is doing the same. Will they get any difference at the end? BTW. 100 years ago official standard unit of time was Earth related, wasn't it? That means, when Great Guru published his mumble, it was a simple logical impossibility even by Your official standards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 23:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkifqqF6m88U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378710 |
On 12/03/2016 9:58 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dki9m5F54euU1@mid.individual.net... >> |A clock using the Caesium standard gives seconds of the same length >> >> No, it doesn't. Check at GPS. > > |It does at a GPS satellite too. Very accurately. > > Really? So, how much of Your "standard" seconds from Earth > takes Your "standard" second from a satellite? > > As I've said, most of us are stupid enough to buy a naked > emperor for a short time, but not all of us. In a long > term You have no chance. Your "standard" won't pass. > >> Or in Your beloved twins >> paradox. And that's exactly, what the problem is. >> Most of us are stupid enough to buy a naked >> emperor for a short time, but not all of us. In a long >> term You have no chance. Your "standard" won't pass. > > |If we imagine two clocks - one that uses the average day as a basis, and > |one that uses the caesium standard - then they'll run at almost > |identical rates on Earth, because the caesium standard was set so that > |they would. > |If you then put them both next to a GPS satellite, they'll still run at > |almost identical rates. > > "Almost" sometimes means a big difference. Not in this case. There would be no change in the amount of the difference. > Imagine now Your famous twins. Imagine that one of them > counts time in Earth days while the other is doing the same. > Will they get any difference at the end? One of them is a long way from Earth for much of the time. How are they going to do the counting? > > BTW. 100 years ago official standard unit of time was Earth > related, wasn't it? > That means, when Great Guru published his mumble, it was > a simple logical impossibility even by Your official standards. > The standard tells you how long a second is, and you build clocks that register the passage of time according to that standard. When the standard was based on the rotation of the Earth, it determined the length of second as registered by a clock on the Earth. In that era the question of how clocks not on the Earth would register the passage of time time wasn't a significant concern. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 13:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc1311$rmf$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378713 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dkifqqF6m88U1@mid.individual.net... > Imagine now Your famous twins. Imagine that one of them > counts time in Earth days while the other is doing the same. > Will they get any difference at the end? |One of them is a long way from Earth for much of the time. How are they |going to do the counting? When Your insane guru said about the same twins looking at THE CLOCK OF EACH OTHER, You didn't ask, how. Or did You? So, will they or won't they? > BTW. 100 years ago official standard unit of time was Earth > related, wasn't it? > That means, when Great Guru published his mumble, it was > a simple logical impossibility even by Your official standards. > |The standard tells you how long a second is, and you build clocks that |register the passage of time according to that standard. Right. The standard 100 years ago told, that it is 1/(24*60*60) of a day, and the mumble of Your guru was a simple and obvious logical absurd then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 05:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ad7f5fb8-3dcd-4c2b-8519-a4221dff5fa3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378714 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:45:22 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Right. The standard 100 years ago told, that it is 1/(24*60*60) of > a day, and the mumble of Your guru was a simple and obvious logical > absurd then. Oppositional Defiant Disorder How ODD :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 14:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc1554$qnd$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378715 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ad7f5fb8-3dcd-4c2b-8519-a4221dff5fa3@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:45:22 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Right. The standard 100 years ago told, that it is 1/(24*60*60) of > a day, and the mumble of Your guru was a simple and obvious logical > absurd then. |Oppositional Defiant Disorder Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do, when confronted with facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 06:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <31b3f29f-8e80-4e51-8e2c-a01abb70251c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378717 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 6:21:42 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ad7f5fb8-3dcd-4c2b-8519-a4221dff5fa3@googlegroups.com... > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:45:22 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > And the stupid ODD troll can't even format his replies correctly: > > > > Right. The standard 100 years ago told, that it is 1/(24*60*60) of > > a day, and the mumble of Your guru was a simple and obvious logical > > absurd then. > > |Oppositional Defiant Disorder > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do, when > confronted with facts. Face it, Wozzie, you have no facts. You live in unreality. “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” – Adam Savage
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc1c4a$58p$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378725 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:31b3f29f-8e80-4e51-8e2c-a01abb70251c@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 6:21:42 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ad7f5fb8-3dcd-4c2b-8519-a4221dff5fa3@googlegroups.com... > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:45:22 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > And the stupid ODD troll can't even format his replies correctly: > > > > Right. The standard 100 years ago told, that it is 1/(24*60*60) of > > a day, and the mumble of Your guru was a simple and obvious logical > > absurd then. > > |Oppositional Defiant Disorder > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do, when > confronted with facts. |Face it, Wozzie, you have no facts. You live in unreality. It's you who claimed GPS clocks unreal because they don't match your Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web