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 15 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 23 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 14:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63e8af3b-b7ae-47d0-8faa-6a440fce91ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378730 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:20:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:31b3f29f-8e80-4e51-8e2c-a01abb70251c@googlegroups.com... > > > > And the stupid ODD troll can't even format his replies correctly: > > > > |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. I never said anything so stupid. Your thought processes are faulty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 23:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc26dl$rh2$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378761 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:63e8af3b-b7ae-47d0-8faa-6a440fce91ea@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:20:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:31b3f29f-8e80-4e51-8e2c-a01abb70251c@googlegroups.com... > > > > And the stupid ODD troll can't even format his replies correctly: > > > > |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. |I never said anything so stupid. Your thought processes are faulty. Oh, yes, you did. You're really, really stupid. Even comparing to your fellows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 14:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21648333-ed09-4244-8702-f5307d4cfe80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378765 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 3:49:26 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:63e8af3b-b7ae-47d0-8faa-6a440fce91ea@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:20:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > |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. > > |I never said anything so stupid. Your thought processes are faulty. > > Oh, yes, you did. You're really, really stupid. Even comparing > to your fellows. Prove it, pinhead, or StFU. Assertion isn't evidence. Lying weasels like you spout off bullshit all the time. You just say any stupid thing that comes into your empty head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 17:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f3fdbf4-c8d9-4545-a012-fac7a7dc2faa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378717 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:21:42 AM UTC-8, 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: > > > > 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. Magic Incantation #3. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 13:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc15pu$177$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378715 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > 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 :-) You rather of *I Am a Guru Syndrome* (IAGS)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 01:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkimeeF8bplU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378714 |
On 12/03/2016 11:45 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > 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? If the travelling twin looks at the distant Earth (where the non-travelling twin is assumed to remain), then they will inevitably conclude that the same number of days has past. But here's the rub. It takes light time to travel from the distant Earth, and the time required increases with distance. Since the travelling twin is either moving away from, or towards, the Earth, the time for successive observations of the distant Earth increases or decreases, accordingly. The lengths of an observed day are therefore increased, or decreased, compared with the usual length of a day, even if relativity is wrong. Further, to calculate the deviation, the travelling twin would need to make assumptions about the speed of light. So the travelling twin can observe the days that pass for the stationary twin, but the lengths of those days do not correspond to the travelling twin's experience of time passing, even ignoring relativity. The travelling twin clearly needs a different way of assessing the passage of time that they experience. > > So, will they or won't they? Will they or won't they what? > >> 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. The interesting question is what happens when you take a clock constructed accordingly, and put it next to a GPS satellite. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 16:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc1c0p$55o$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378724 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dkimeeF8bplU1@mid.individual.net... On 12/03/2016 11:45 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > 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? |If the travelling twin looks at the distant Earth (where the |non-travelling twin is assumed to remain), then they will inevitably |conclude that the same number of days has past. |But here's the rub. It takes light time to travel from the distant |Earth, and the time required increases with distance. Since the No, there is no rub. At the end, they're both at the Earth. Now: stationary one see his pattern (Earth) completed n cycles since they were born. How many cycles has the pattern of the second one (Earth, too) completed at this time? |So the travelling twin can observe the days that pass for the stationary |twin, but the lengths of those days do not correspond to the travelling |twin's experience of time passing, even ignoring relativity. :) Srtarting a space travel one shouldn't be surprised by strange experiences. Should he trust this feelings or should he trust a direct measurement with pattern? You don't think about the scale. I would be surprised, if You did. No, nobody will experience anything. Your effect is too little to experience in SS, and interstellar travels are about impossible, and even if they are not impossible they are really, really exceptional. |The travelling twin clearly needs a different way of assessing the And it's clear he should notice running trees and lanterns, when on Earth. But it's clear only for a relativistic fanatic, knowing NOTHING about real observers, and interested in NOTHING about real observers. > So, will they or won't they? |Will they or won't they what? As I asked. Will they get any difference at the end? Using day (OK, average day) as a time pattern. > >> 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. |The interesting question is what happens when you take a clock |constructed accordingly, and put it next to a GPS satellite. If I fail to construct it as I want, it will fail to work as I want. What's so interesting about it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 14:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkk54cFjoqoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378729 |
On 13/03/2016 2:18 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dkimeeF8bplU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 12/03/2016 11:45 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> 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? > > |If the travelling twin looks at the distant Earth (where the > |non-travelling twin is assumed to remain), then they will inevitably > |conclude that the same number of days has past. > |But here's the rub. It takes light time to travel from the distant > |Earth, and the time required increases with distance. Since the > > No, there is no rub. At the end, they're both at the Earth. > Now: stationary one see his pattern (Earth) completed n cycles > since they were born. How many cycles has the pattern of > the second one (Earth, too) completed at this time? > > |So the travelling twin can observe the days that pass for the stationary > |twin, but the lengths of those days do not correspond to the travelling > |twin's experience of time passing, even ignoring relativity. > > :) > Srtarting a space travel one shouldn't be surprised by > strange experiences. Should he trust this feelings or > should he trust a direct measurement with pattern? With a suitable technology, we can make life comfortable for our travelling twin, by giving him an acceleration equal to the acceleration under Earth's gravity. That means that if the twin steps on a spring balance, he will register the same weight as if he'd done so (on the same spring balance) on Earth. Now, if he drops something inside his space craft, it will appear to descend to the floor with an acceleration of 9.81 metres per second squared. That is, metres as measured by the twin, and seconds as measured by the twin. Conversely, the time taken for an object to drop from rest (that is, not moving relative to the spacecraft) by a distance of 4.905 metres is then one second. So the twin has a direct way of obtaining a period of time that to him feels like one second. Indeed, he'll find that things that Earth would have taken one second will, when done on the spacecraft, take a period equal to the period determined as above to be one second. This includes the rate at which spring balance wheels oscillate, the rate at which candles burn, and indeed, the rate at which the chemical reactions inside the twin's body occur. So the second as determined that way relates directly to how fast the twin is aging. By contrast, any observations of Earth through a telescope yield no information about the length of a second until the twin finally reaches Earth. The core issue then is whether the number of seconds the twin experiences will correspond to the number of seconds that have passed on Earth by the time the twin gets back. Relativity says no. You say yes (at least, I think you do), but you have no argument to support your position, whereas relativity has been carefully reasoned and is supported by experimental results. > > You don't think about the scale. I would be surprised, > if You did. No, nobody will experience anything. > Your effect is too little to experience in SS, and > interstellar travels are about impossible, and > even if they are not impossible they are really, > really exceptional. > If you don't think the twin "paradox" is real, then why mention it in the first place? > > > |The travelling twin clearly needs a different way of assessing the > > And it's clear he should notice running trees and lanterns, when > on Earth. > But it's clear only for a relativistic fanatic, knowing NOTHING > about real observers, and interested in NOTHING about real > observers. > > > >> So, will they or won't they? > > |Will they or won't they what? > As I asked. > Will they get any difference at the end? > Using day (OK, average day) as a time pattern. > Watching the Earth through a telescope, and counting the rotations, amounts to measuring the number of days that have passed on Earth. It says nothing about the number of days that have passed on the spaceship carrying the travelling twin. Defining the average day on the spaceship to be the average day as seen through the telescope doesn't tell us anything about the experience of the travelling twin in terms of how much food and water he's needed, how many recorded television episodes he's been able to watch, and indeed, how much he's aged. > > >> >>> 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. > > |The interesting question is what happens when you take a clock > |constructed accordingly, and put it next to a GPS satellite. > > If I fail to construct it as I want, it will fail to work as I want. > What's so interesting about it? I assume you want to construct it so that it records time according to the standard when on Earth. I also assume you haven't deliberately constructed it so as to fail in space. Construct it honestly, and it will behave as I've said. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 09:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc3933$270$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378779 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dkk54cFjoqoU1@mid.individual.net... |With a suitable technology, we can make life comfortable for our You would have to learn some about reality and real people, first. |So the twin has a direct way of obtaining a period of time that to him |feels like one second. Yes. You can teach him to feel as you want him to feel. Or, at least, to pretend. Most obvious way is simple brainwashing: You're yelling "I'm a GURU!!! What I'm saying is PROPER!!! HONEST!!!! ACCEPTED!!!! (be me). You have to obey!!!!" just like You and Your friends are doing; if he is stupid, he will obey. Unfortunately, some people are not.:( |Indeed, he'll find that things that Earth would have taken one second |will, when done on the spacecraft, take a period equal to the period |determined as above to be one second. This includes the rate at which |spring balance wheels oscillate, the rate at which candles burn, and Lady, assuming we're staying in SS: HOW MUCH? A simple answer: about nothing. Candles burning 0.000001% faster or slower than usual are not a problem. Eggs boiling 0.000001% faster or slower than usual are not a problem. Unsynchronizing clocks are a problem. Check it at GPS. You know nothing about reality and it's problems, so You believe You can solve them just by breaking common sense prejudices. You're mad. |By contrast, any observations of Earth through a telescope yield no |information about the length of a second until the twin finally reaches |Earth. Of course! particularly, when our twins is sitting right above our head in a GPS satellite... |The core issue then is whether the number of seconds the twin |experiences will correspond to the number of seconds that have passed on |Earth by the time the twin gets back. |Relativity says no. When Yor guru published his insane mumble, it was obviously inconsistent with the definition of the second. Now it partially isn't, but that time it completely was. Of course, he was a guru. He was not obliged to follow mere definitions, was he? |You say yes (at least, I think you do), but you have |no argument to support your position Definition of a second obviously is not any argument, is it? |, whereas relativity has been |carefully reasoned and is supported by experimental results. Specify, which, exactly, experiment, supports your hypothesis, that unsynchronized clocks are exactly what humanity needs. > You don't think about the scale. I would be surprised, > if You did. No, nobody will experience anything. > Your effect is too little to experience in SS, and > interstellar travels are about impossible, and > even if they are not impossible they are really, > really exceptional. > |If you don't think the twin "paradox" is real, then why mention it in |the first place? I do think about it. > > |Will they or won't they what? > As I asked. > Will they get any difference at the end? > Using day (OK, average day) as a time pattern. > |Watching the Earth through a telescope, and counting the rotations, |amounts to measuring the number of days that have passed on Earth. It |says nothing about the number of days that have passed Day is the period Earth turns around. Or is it just another common sense prejudice, refuted by Great Guru? |much food and water he's needed, how many recorded television episodes |he's been able to watch, and indeed, how much he's aged. What, precisely, do You call "age" and how do You determine it? > If I fail to construct it as I want, it will fail to work as I want. > What's so interesting about it? |I assume you want to construct it so that it records time according to |the standard when on Earth. I also assume you haven't deliberately |constructed it so as to fail in space. Construct it honestly, and it |will behave as I've said. Sure. Your way is the one and only honest, proper and just way. Exactly as expected from a fanatic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 20:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkkohsFo4h0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378792 |
I've snipped most of this - let's get back to the core issue. On 13/03/2016 7:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Definition of a second obviously is not any argument, is it? Not really, no. So we can imagine a set of clocks constructed so that they each tick once per second on Earth, according to the definition. Let's suppose we constructed them well, so that they stay synchronised while on Earth. The issue is whether they'll remain synchronised if we move some of them into orbit for a while, and then bring them back. You apparently think they will. I say that they won't. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 10:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc3d0p$66c$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378796 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dkkohsFo4h0U1@mid.individual.net... I've snipped most of this - let's get back to the core issue. On 13/03/2016 7:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Definition of a second obviously is not any argument, is it? |Not really, no. So, there is nothing to discuss. Well, as expected from a fanatic. |Let's suppose we constructed them well, so that they stay synchronised |while on Earth. The issue is whether they'll remain synchronised if we |move some of them into orbit for a while, and then bring them back. |You apparently think they will. I say that they won't. That will depend on - how well we've made them. We can make it well, we can make it even better, but we can never make it perfect. If You lived in real world, You would know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 21:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkkuh8FplugU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378801 |
On 13/03/2016 8:47 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dkkohsFo4h0U1@mid.individual.net... > > I've snipped most of this - let's get back to the core issue. > > On 13/03/2016 7:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> Definition of a second obviously is not any argument, is it? > > |Not really, no. > > So, there is nothing to discuss. > Well, as expected from a fanatic. > > > |Let's suppose we constructed them well, so that they stay synchronised > |while on Earth. The issue is whether they'll remain synchronised if we > |move some of them into orbit for a while, and then bring them back. > |You apparently think they will. I say that they won't. > > That will depend on - how well we've made them. > We can make it well, we can make it even better, but > we can never make it perfect. > If You lived in real world, You would know. > It's clear that we can make clocks sufficiently well for this experiment to be practical. Rather than requiring the clocks remain synchronised in an absolute sense, we can make them so that they remain synchronised within some limit. If we do the experiment of moving some into orbit for a while, I say that they will no longer stay synchronised within that limit. You apparently say that they will. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 13:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc3m1r$f1o$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378806 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dkkuh8FplugU1@mid.individual.net... > That will depend on - how well we've made them. > We can make it well, we can make it even better, but > we can never make it perfect. > If You lived in real world, You would know. > |It's clear that we can make clocks sufficiently well for this experiment |to be practical. Rather than requiring the clocks remain synchronised in |an absolute sense, we can make them so that they remain synchronised |within some limit. Yes. It's usually enough. But it's possible to do more. |If we do the experiment of moving some into orbit for a while, I say |that they will no longer stay synchronised within that limit. You |apparently say that they will. Once again: it WILL DEPEND on details. And, anyway, it's not important at all. If clocks do their job, one doesn't have to know how.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 23:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkl5oaFrh3kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378810 |
On 13/03/2016 11:22 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dkkuh8FplugU1@mid.individual.net... > > >> That will depend on - how well we've made them. >> We can make it well, we can make it even better, but >> we can never make it perfect. >> If You lived in real world, You would know. >> > > |It's clear that we can make clocks sufficiently well for this experiment > |to be practical. Rather than requiring the clocks remain synchronised in > |an absolute sense, we can make them so that they remain synchronised > |within some limit. > > Yes. It's usually enough. But it's possible to do more. Still, enough is enough, by definition. Let's suppose that we've done all that's possible, and that it's therefore not possible to do more - again, by definition. > > |If we do the experiment of moving some into orbit for a while, I say > |that they will no longer stay synchronised within that limit. You > |apparently say that they will. > > Once again: it WILL DEPEND on details. > And, anyway, it's not important at all. If clocks do their > job, one doesn't have to know how. > Even if one doesn't have to know, one can still want to know. A clock is a collection of atoms configured in a particular way. We can ask what will happen if we put them in orbit for a while. Nothing stops us from asking. There is no avoiding the fact that there will be some outcome. It doesn't matter what one's motives were for building the clocks, nor one's motives for putting them into orbit for a while, there will be an outcome. It's not possible for there to be no outcome. So, given the previously described experiment, the only point at issue is what the outcome will be. What's your opinion? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 15:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc3sj4$lfa$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378811 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dkl5oaFrh3kU1@mid.individual.net... > |If we do the experiment of moving some into orbit for a while, I say > |that they will no longer stay synchronised within that limit. You > |apparently say that they will. > > Once again: it WILL DEPEND on details. > And, anyway, it's not important at all. If clocks do their > job, one doesn't have to know how. > |We can ask what will happen if we put them in orbit for a while. Nothing |stops us from asking. And nothing stops me from answerring again: it depends on details. Are we doing ALL what is possible? Fine. Take some pulsars and use them the way You're using GPS satellites. A little more complicated, as they are not synchronized. But, obviously possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378818 |
On 14/03/2016 1:13 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dkl5oaFrh3kU1@mid.individual.net... > >> |If we do the experiment of moving some into orbit for a while, I say >> |that they will no longer stay synchronised within that limit. You >> |apparently say that they will. >> >> Once again: it WILL DEPEND on details. Yet when details a given, you quibble over them. Fine, we'll construct two caesium atomic clocks that tick once every 9,000,000,000 cycles of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. They clearly will not tick once per second, because the number is way off, but they'll tick at some rate. We'll set them running at some moment, so that they tick synchronously. Given their stability, they'll remain synchronous within some limit for a long time. We'll choose the limit so that that time is a year for the particular pair of clocks. Having checked that, we'll stop them and set them running again, so that they're again synchronous. Now we'll move them both into orbit, and bring one back down immediately. The other we'll leave in orbit for six months then bring it back down. I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified limit. You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > Take some pulsars and use them the way You're using GPS > satellites. A little more complicated, as they are not synchronized. > But, obviously possible. > The central issue with the GPS is what needs to be done in the satellite, if anything, for it to transmit a particular frequency. Since we have no control over pulsars, a different engineering solution would be required anyway. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc708n$t49$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378895 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified |limit. You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. No, I don't. I say, Your "standard" won't pass. |Since |we have no control over pulsars, a different engineering solution would |be required anyway. Different, but not especially.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 11:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkp4eqFsjieU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378964 |
On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > > |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > |limit. > > You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > > > |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > > No, I don't. > I say, Your "standard" won't pass. What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about standards because none are involved. It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I said, or not? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 00:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <420bf07e-b02c-43dd-b272-d6d36376ab88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379006 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified > > |limit. > > > > You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. > > > > > > |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within > > |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. > > > > No, I don't. > > I say, Your "standard" won't pass. > > What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device > that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken > with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. > > They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about > standards because none are involved. > > It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I > said, or not? AFAIK - of course. And for normal people it means good, old, common, classic clock error instead Your time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 20:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkq2b6F4t21U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379020 |
On 15/03/2016 6:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 01:48:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 15/03/2016 5:34 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>> >>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>> dyskusyjnych:dkmjo8F8m2rU1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>> |I say that they're now not synchronised within the previously specified >>> |limit. >>> >>> You say many things, this is possibly the only correct. >>> >>> >>> |You say, apparently, that they'll still be synchronised within >>> |that limit, because only half the previously identified time has elapsed. >>> >>> No, I don't. >>> I say, Your "standard" won't pass. >> >> What standard? I haven't mentioned a standard. I've described a device >> that's working in a particular way. Then I've described actions taken >> with the device. Then I've posited outcomes that arise. >> >> They either arise, or they don't. There's no room here for arguing about >> standards because none are involved. >> >> It's time to pin your colours to the mast. Do the outcomes arise as I >> said, or not? > > AFAIK - of course. > And for normal people it means good, old, common, > classic clock error instead Your time dilation. > Odd though, don't you think, that a theory conceived before atomic clocks, and certainly before putting clocks into orbit could be imagined, manages nevertheless to very precisely predict what you call the error? How is that to be explained (away)? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web