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 17 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 23 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 19:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl1r0aF4rvuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379407 |
On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. >>>>> >>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the >>>>> display. >>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. >>>> >>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. >>> >>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. >>> >>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be >>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. >>> >>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this >>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's >>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing >>> with them. >> >> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that >> they will behave as you want. > > No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. > It's been already done at GPS, it's not even > especially difficult, and with using pulsars > should be even easier. It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain synchronised regardless of where they are. GPS clocks don't do that. They remain synchronised with ground clocks only while they remain in orbit. If you bring one down to Earth, it will gain relative to those same ground clocks. > > >>>> How do you explain the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment? >>> >>> Your beloved "let's explain" game had never a real importance. >>> There is billions of possible explainations and I won't >>> give a damn to any of them. >>> >> >> Really, "billions"? > > Really, even more - alef0. > > >> Anyway, what you're really saying is that you have your fixed idea, and >> it's impossible for you to be swayed regardless of the strength of the >> evidence. > > Yes, I really need synchronized clocks. > I really need them to do, what I'm paid for. > And what, precisely, is Your evidence that > I don't? I don't have any evidence that you don't, and I've never claimed otherwise. I am saying that you won't get them. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 19:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl1r2nF4rvuU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379408 |
On 18/03/2016 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain > synchronised regardless of where they are. GPS clocks don't do that. > They remain synchronised with ground clocks only while they remain in > orbit. If you bring one down to Earth, it will gain relative to those > same ground clocks. Er, I meant lose, of course. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 01:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a2367a4-41ed-465f-830f-f1ff03bb9a41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379408 |
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the > >>>>> display. > >>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. > >>>> > >>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. > >>> > >>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. > >>> > >>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be > >>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. > >>> > >>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this > >>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's > >>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing > >>> with them. > >> > >> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that > >> they will behave as you want. > > > > No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. > > It's been already done at GPS, it's not even > > especially difficult, and with using pulsars > > should be even easier. > > It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain > synchronised regardless of where they are. Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? I just want clocks to be synchronised. Still, what You say is also possible, I think, with use of pulsars. > > > > > > >>>> How do you explain the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment? > >>> > >>> Your beloved "let's explain" game had never a real importance. > >>> There is billions of possible explainations and I won't > >>> give a damn to any of them. > >>> > >> > >> Really, "billions"? > > > > Really, even more - alef0. > > > > > >> Anyway, what you're really saying is that you have your fixed idea, and > >> it's impossible for you to be swayed regardless of the strength of the > >> evidence. > > > > Yes, I really need synchronized clocks. > > I really need them to do, what I'm paid for. > > And what, precisely, is Your evidence that > > I don't? > > I don't have any evidence that you don't, and I've never claimed > otherwise. No? So what did You mind saying about my "fixed idea"? > I am saying that you won't get them. Wrong, lady, I will. Clocks will be synchronized, samely, as planes fly, whatever Your gurus imagined or imagine. Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 19:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl1shjF589pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379410 |
On 18/03/2016 7:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the >>>>>>> display. >>>>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. >>>>>> >>>>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. >>>>> >>>>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. >>>>> >>>>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be >>>>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. >>>>> >>>>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this >>>>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's >>>>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing >>>>> with them. >>>> >>>> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that >>>> they will behave as you want. >>> >>> No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. >>> It's been already done at GPS, it's not even >>> especially difficult, and with using pulsars >>> should be even easier. >> >> It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain >> synchronised regardless of where they are. > > Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? > I just want clocks to be synchronised. Well, you can get that just by nominating one as the master, and adjusting the others so that they stay synchronised. General relativity will tell you how much adjustment is required. > Still, what You say is also possible, I think, > with use of pulsars. That just constitutes determining the time on the pulsar. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 01:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe25fdae-5ef9-4866-b9a8-935aa2a338ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379412 |
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:28:39 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 18/03/2016 7:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the > >>>>>>> display. > >>>>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. > >>>>> > >>>>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. > >>>>> > >>>>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be > >>>>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. > >>>>> > >>>>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this > >>>>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's > >>>>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing > >>>>> with them. > >>>> > >>>> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that > >>>> they will behave as you want. > >>> > >>> No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. > >>> It's been already done at GPS, it's not even > >>> especially difficult, and with using pulsars > >>> should be even easier. > >> > >> It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain > >> synchronised regardless of where they are. > > > > Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? > > I just want clocks to be synchronised. > > Well, you can get that just by nominating one as the master, and > adjusting the others so that they stay synchronised. Yes, it's the easiest way. > General relativity > will tell you how much adjustment is required. Wrong, lady. GR will tell me it's unproper, dishonest, nonstandard and I will never get it. Well - it has already done, using You as its tube.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 21:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl24gtF78g9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379413 |
On 18/03/2016 7:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:28:39 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 18/03/2016 7:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the >>>>>>>>> display. >>>>>>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be >>>>>>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this >>>>>>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's >>>>>>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing >>>>>>> with them. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that >>>>>> they will behave as you want. >>>>> >>>>> No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. >>>>> It's been already done at GPS, it's not even >>>>> especially difficult, and with using pulsars >>>>> should be even easier. >>>> >>>> It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain >>>> synchronised regardless of where they are. >>> >>> Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? >>> I just want clocks to be synchronised. >> >> Well, you can get that just by nominating one as the master, and >> adjusting the others so that they stay synchronised. > > Yes, it's the easiest way. > >> General relativity >> will tell you how much adjustment is required. > > Wrong, lady. GR will tell me it's unproper, dishonest, > nonstandard and I will never get it. Well - it has > already done, using You as its tube. > GR is a physical theory. It is not capable of making value judgements. For each clock, GR will just give you a number, which is the factor by which the clock must be adjusted. If you don't like GR, then you can use trial and error. I suppose you'll get there eventually, but when you do, you'll discover that the factor you've actually used is the one that GR would have given you if you'd only listened. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 04:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77df6ba5-9d67-4bd2-bb8a-825807fdf3d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379418 |
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 11:44:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 18/03/2016 7:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:28:39 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 18/03/2016 7:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the > >>>>>>>>> display. > >>>>>>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be > >>>>>>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this > >>>>>>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's > >>>>>>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing > >>>>>>> with them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that > >>>>>> they will behave as you want. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. > >>>>> It's been already done at GPS, it's not even > >>>>> especially difficult, and with using pulsars > >>>>> should be even easier. > >>>> > >>>> It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain > >>>> synchronised regardless of where they are. > >>> > >>> Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? > >>> I just want clocks to be synchronised. > >> > >> Well, you can get that just by nominating one as the master, and > >> adjusting the others so that they stay synchronised. > > > > Yes, it's the easiest way. > > > >> General relativity > >> will tell you how much adjustment is required. > > > > Wrong, lady. GR will tell me it's unproper, dishonest, > > nonstandard and I will never get it. Well - it has > > already done, using You as its tube. > > > > GR is a physical theory. It is not capable of making value judgements. Yes. It's not capable. But it's still making them. You don't know much, so no surprise You don't know that "proper" is exactly that: a value judgement. And You're using also "good". It wouldn't be a problem, if Your gurus listened to common sense. But they don't. They announced common sense as a set of prejudices. And they announced unsynchronizing clocks as good and proper. No sane people can ever accept it. Your "standard" won't pass. > For each clock, GR will just give you a number, which is the factor by > which the clock must be adjusted. Yes. And for Cs clock the number is - 0. Cs clock is Your pattern, You know. > If you don't like GR, then you can use trial and error. I suppose you'll > get there eventually, but when you do, you'll discover that the factor > you've actually used is the one that GR would have given you if you'd > only listened. Wrong, lady. It is giving me 0: nice, proper, symmetrical standard and totally useless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 22:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl27ctF7vtnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379419 |
On 18/03/2016 10:17 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 11:44:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 18/03/2016 7:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:28:39 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 18/03/2016 7:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the >>>>>>>>>>> display. >>>>>>>>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be >>>>>>>>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this >>>>>>>>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's >>>>>>>>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing >>>>>>>>> with them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that >>>>>>>> they will behave as you want. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. >>>>>>> It's been already done at GPS, it's not even >>>>>>> especially difficult, and with using pulsars >>>>>>> should be even easier. >>>>>> >>>>>> It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain >>>>>> synchronised regardless of where they are. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? >>>>> I just want clocks to be synchronised. >>>> >>>> Well, you can get that just by nominating one as the master, and >>>> adjusting the others so that they stay synchronised. >>> >>> Yes, it's the easiest way. >>> >>>> General relativity >>>> will tell you how much adjustment is required. >>> >>> Wrong, lady. GR will tell me it's unproper, dishonest, >>> nonstandard and I will never get it. Well - it has >>> already done, using You as its tube. >>> >> >> GR is a physical theory. It is not capable of making value judgements. > > Yes. It's not capable. But it's still making them. > You don't know much, so no surprise You don't > know that "proper" is exactly that: a value judgement. > And You're using also "good". > It wouldn't be a problem, if Your gurus listened to > common sense. But they don't. > They announced common sense as a set of prejudices. > And they announced unsynchronizing clocks as good and > proper. > No sane people can ever accept it. > Your "standard" won't pass. > > >> For each clock, GR will just give you a number, which is the factor by >> which the clock must be adjusted. > > Yes. And for Cs clock the number is - 0. I take it you're subtracting 1. A factor of 0 hardly makes sense in this context. No it's not. If you want a Caesium clock in orbit to remain synchronised to a Caesium clock on the ground, you have to apply the same factor as for any other type of clock. >> If you don't like GR, then you can use trial and error. I suppose you'll >> get there eventually, but when you do, you'll discover that the factor >> you've actually used is the one that GR would have given you if you'd >> only listened. > > Wrong, lady. It is giving me 0: nice, proper, symmetrical > standard and totally useless. You previously stated that, and then appeared to back away from it. The problem being that even if you don't regard general relativity as being a correct theory, it is still a set of equations which does not give exactly 1 (or exactly zero if you subtract 1). To claim otherwise is to claim that physicists cannot do their sums. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 05:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1826ed8d-716b-42cc-a522-f71546d247f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379421 |
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 12:33:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 18/03/2016 10:17 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 11:44:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 18/03/2016 7:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:28:39 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 18/03/2016 7:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the > >>>>>>>>>>> display. > >>>>>>>>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be > >>>>>>>>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this > >>>>>>>>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's > >>>>>>>>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing > >>>>>>>>> with them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that > >>>>>>>> they will behave as you want. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. > >>>>>>> It's been already done at GPS, it's not even > >>>>>>> especially difficult, and with using pulsars > >>>>>>> should be even easier. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain > >>>>>> synchronised regardless of where they are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? > >>>>> I just want clocks to be synchronised. > >>>> > >>>> Well, you can get that just by nominating one as the master, and > >>>> adjusting the others so that they stay synchronised. > >>> > >>> Yes, it's the easiest way. > >>> > >>>> General relativity > >>>> will tell you how much adjustment is required. > >>> > >>> Wrong, lady. GR will tell me it's unproper, dishonest, > >>> nonstandard and I will never get it. Well - it has > >>> already done, using You as its tube. > >>> > >> > >> GR is a physical theory. It is not capable of making value judgements. > > > > Yes. It's not capable. But it's still making them. > > You don't know much, so no surprise You don't > > know that "proper" is exactly that: a value judgement. > > And You're using also "good". > > It wouldn't be a problem, if Your gurus listened to > > common sense. But they don't. > > They announced common sense as a set of prejudices. > > And they announced unsynchronizing clocks as good and > > proper. > > No sane people can ever accept it. > > Your "standard" won't pass. > > > > > >> For each clock, GR will just give you a number, which is the factor by > >> which the clock must be adjusted. > > > > Yes. And for Cs clock the number is - 0. > > I take it you're subtracting 1. A factor of 0 hardly makes sense in this > context. But it is the number, which is the factor by which the clock must be adjusted according to GR. Cs clock is Your standard, You know. > No it's not. If you want a Caesium clock in orbit to remain synchronised According to GR it's a false assumption. You don't know, of course, the meaning of proper/unproper words - no surprise - but it is about "I want it"/"I don't want it". As You surely know, formally any statement starting from false assumption is true. > >> If you don't like GR, then you can use trial and error. I suppose you'll > >> get there eventually, but when you do, you'll discover that the factor > >> you've actually used is the one that GR would have given you if you'd > >> only listened. > > > > Wrong, lady. It is giving me 0: nice, proper, symmetrical > > standard and totally useless. > > You previously stated that, and then appeared to back away from it. Cs is a PATTERN of Yours. The adjustments needed for a pattern are 0. Don't You know even that? No surprise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d398f77-e980-4888-ac95-8e8ac6ed7a67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379423 |
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 13:08:35 UTC+1 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał: > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 12:33:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > On 18/03/2016 10:17 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 11:44:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >> On 18/03/2016 7:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:28:39 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>> On 18/03/2016 7:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>> On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the > > >>>>>>>>>>> display. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be > > >>>>>>>>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this > > >>>>>>>>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's > > >>>>>>>>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing > > >>>>>>>>> with them. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that > > >>>>>>>> they will behave as you want. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. > > >>>>>>> It's been already done at GPS, it's not even > > >>>>>>> especially difficult, and with using pulsars > > >>>>>>> should be even easier. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain > > >>>>>> synchronised regardless of where they are. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? > > >>>>> I just want clocks to be synchronised. > > >>>> > > >>>> Well, you can get that just by nominating one as the master, and > > >>>> adjusting the others so that they stay synchronised. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it's the easiest way. > > >>> > > >>>> General relativity > > >>>> will tell you how much adjustment is required. > > >>> > > >>> Wrong, lady. GR will tell me it's unproper, dishonest, > > >>> nonstandard and I will never get it. Well - it has > > >>> already done, using You as its tube. > > >>> > > >> > > >> GR is a physical theory. It is not capable of making value judgements. > > > > > > Yes. It's not capable. But it's still making them. > > > You don't know much, so no surprise You don't > > > know that "proper" is exactly that: a value judgement. > > > And You're using also "good". > > > It wouldn't be a problem, if Your gurus listened to > > > common sense. But they don't. > > > They announced common sense as a set of prejudices. > > > And they announced unsynchronizing clocks as good and > > > proper. > > > No sane people can ever accept it. > > > Your "standard" won't pass. > > > > > > > > >> For each clock, GR will just give you a number, which is the factor by > > >> which the clock must be adjusted. > > > > > > Yes. And for Cs clock the number is - 0. > > > > I take it you're subtracting 1. A factor of 0 hardly makes sense in this > > context. > > But it is the number, which is the factor by which the clock > must be adjusted according to GR. > Cs clock is Your standard, You know. OK, my mistake, 1. > > > > No it's not. If you want a Caesium clock in orbit to remain synchronised > > According to GR it's a false assumption. You don't > know, of course, the meaning of proper/unproper words - > no surprise - but it is about "I want it"/"I don't > want it". > > As You surely know, formally any statement starting > from false assumption is true. > > > > >> If you don't like GR, then you can use trial and error. I suppose you'll > > >> get there eventually, but when you do, you'll discover that the factor > > >> you've actually used is the one that GR would have given you if you'd > > >> only listened. > > > > > > Wrong, lady. It is giving me 0: nice, proper, symmetrical > > > standard and totally useless. > > > > You previously stated that, and then appeared to back away from it. > > Cs is a PATTERN of Yours. > The adjustments needed for a pattern are 0. > Don't You know even that? > No surprise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 12:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl3mkoFk04mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379423 |
On 18/03/2016 11:08 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 12:33:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 18/03/2016 10:17 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 11:44:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 18/03/2016 7:53 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:28:39 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 18/03/2016 7:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 09:02:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 6:04 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 22:52:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 11:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 17 marca 2016 12:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:32 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A measurement of a frequency is an indication. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, lady. Indication is a numeric value on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> display. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reality. Something You have no clue about. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Frequency meters usually do have a digital display these days. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And still, indication is a numeric value on a display. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're back to that. Yes, we know you want your clocks to be >>>>>>>>>>>> synchronised, but you can't have everything that you want. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your "unproper" and "dishonest" spells won't stop us this >>>>>>>>>>> time. We will make our clocks our way. Not Your insane guru's >>>>>>>>>>> way. They are too important to allow fools like him playing >>>>>>>>>>> with them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have yet to indicate that you know how to make your clocks such that >>>>>>>>>> they will behave as you want. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, lady. I don't have to indicate anything. >>>>>>>>> It's been already done at GPS, it's not even >>>>>>>>> especially difficult, and with using pulsars >>>>>>>>> should be even easier. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It hasn't been done with GPS. You want clocks that will remain >>>>>>>> synchronised regardless of where they are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wrong, lady. Where did You get this crazy idea? >>>>>>> I just want clocks to be synchronised. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, you can get that just by nominating one as the master, and >>>>>> adjusting the others so that they stay synchronised. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it's the easiest way. >>>>> >>>>>> General relativity >>>>>> will tell you how much adjustment is required. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong, lady. GR will tell me it's unproper, dishonest, >>>>> nonstandard and I will never get it. Well - it has >>>>> already done, using You as its tube. >>>>> >>>> >>>> GR is a physical theory. It is not capable of making value judgements. >>> >>> Yes. It's not capable. But it's still making them. >>> You don't know much, so no surprise You don't >>> know that "proper" is exactly that: a value judgement. >>> And You're using also "good". >>> It wouldn't be a problem, if Your gurus listened to >>> common sense. But they don't. >>> They announced common sense as a set of prejudices. >>> And they announced unsynchronizing clocks as good and >>> proper. >>> No sane people can ever accept it. >>> Your "standard" won't pass. >>> >>> >>>> For each clock, GR will just give you a number, which is the factor by >>>> which the clock must be adjusted. >>> >>> Yes. And for Cs clock the number is - 0. >> >> I take it you're subtracting 1. A factor of 0 hardly makes sense in this >> context. > > But it is the number, which is the factor by which the clock > must be adjusted according to GR. > Cs clock is Your standard, You know. > > >> No it's not. If you want a Caesium clock in orbit to remain synchronised > > According to GR it's a false assumption. You don't > know, of course, the meaning of proper/unproper words - > no surprise - but it is about "I want it"/"I don't > want it". > > As You surely know, formally any statement starting > from false assumption is true. > > >>>> If you don't like GR, then you can use trial and error. I suppose you'll >>>> get there eventually, but when you do, you'll discover that the factor >>>> you've actually used is the one that GR would have given you if you'd >>>> only listened. >>> >>> Wrong, lady. It is giving me 0: nice, proper, symmetrical >>> standard and totally useless. >> >> You previously stated that, and then appeared to back away from it. > > Cs is a PATTERN of Yours. > The adjustments needed for a pattern are 0. > Don't You know even that? > No surprise. > > > > The above is mostly gibberish. But you still seem to be claiming that general relativity gives a factor of exactly 1 [*] when it doesn't. Regardless of whether general relativity is a correct theory, it is still a set of mathematical equations, which do not give a factor of exactly 1 in this situation. How can you possibly think it reasonable to claim otherwise, when that would imply that physicists cannot do their sums (but that you can). As I've said before, that's arrogance in the extreme. Sylvia. [*] I note your second reply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 08:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncj0ov$5np$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379488 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dl3mkoFk04mU1@mid.individual.net... |But you still seem to be claiming that general relativity gives a factor |of exactly 1 [*] when it doesn't. Yes, it does |Regardless of whether general |relativity is a correct theory, it is still a set of mathematical |equations Wrong, lady. It's a mad ideology trying to persuade unsynchronized clocks as good and proper, and spitting on those who object. |, which do not give a factor of exactly 1 in this situation. Once again: Cs clock is a measurement pattern of Yours. No physics theory will predict any adjustment of its pattern.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 19:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl4foeFphv8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379503 |
On 19/03/2016 6:56 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl3mkoFk04mU1@mid.individual.net... > > > |But you still seem to be claiming that general relativity gives a factor > |of exactly 1 [*] when it doesn't. > > Yes, it does > > |Regardless of whether general > |relativity is a correct theory, it is still a set of mathematical > |equations > > Wrong, lady. It's a mad ideology trying to persuade > unsynchronized clocks as good and proper, and > spitting on those who object. > > |, which do not give a factor of exactly 1 in this situation. > > Once again: Cs clock is a measurement pattern of Yours. > No physics theory will predict any adjustment of > its pattern. > > > > > I can easily construct a physics theory that makes such a prediction. It says that if two clocks are vertically separated, then the higher clock runs faster (as seen by the lower clock) by a factor of (1 + h/100) where h is the height difference. There's can be no questioning that this theory makes predictions, and that the factor is only exactly 1 when h = 0. Adjustment by this factor is required to keep the clocks synchronised. OK, the predictions are wildly wrong, but they are predictions nevertheless. Now, you'll object that it's not a correct theory, and you'd be right. But if you object that it doesn't predict an adjustment, it's manifestly clear that you'd be wrong. And that's where you are regarding general relativity. You're claiming that it doesn't make predictions, when it clearly does, regardless of whether it's a correct theory. Your position is absurd. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 09:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncj3oe$8qg$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379506 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dl4foeFphv8U1@mid.individual.net... On 19/03/2016 6:56 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl3mkoFk04mU1@mid.individual.net... > > > |But you still seem to be claiming that general relativity gives a factor > |of exactly 1 [*] when it doesn't. > > Yes, it does > > |Regardless of whether general > |relativity is a correct theory, it is still a set of mathematical > |equations > > Wrong, lady. It's a mad ideology trying to persuade > unsynchronized clocks as good and proper, and > spitting on those who object. > > |, which do not give a factor of exactly 1 in this situation. > > Once again: Cs clock is a measurement pattern of Yours. > No physics theory will predict any adjustment of > its pattern. > > > > > |I can easily construct a physics theory that makes such a prediction. It |says that if two clocks are vertically separated, then the higher clock |runs faster (as seen by the lower clock) by a factor of (1 + h/100) |where h is the height difference. Yes. And You can easily confirm it with measurements: 1)assume that good and proper clocks are clocks You've described, 2)make good, proper clocks 3)measure But You can't make this theory consistent with a desire of synchronized clocks. Either You want clocks to run Your guru's way - or You don't want them. If You want both, You're inconsistent. There's can be no questioning that this theory makes predictions, and that the factor is only exactly 1 when h = 0. Adjustment by this factor is required to keep the clocks synchronised. OK, the predictions are wildly wrong, but they are predictions nevertheless. Now, you'll object that it's not a correct theory, and you'd be right. But if you object that it doesn't predict an adjustment, it's manifestly clear that you'd be wrong. And that's where you are regarding general relativity. You're claiming that it doesn't make predictions, when it clearly does, regardless of whether it's a correct theory. Your position is absurd. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 20:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl4j6kFqdnqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379508 |
On 19/03/2016 7:47 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl4foeFphv8U1@mid.individual.net... > > On 19/03/2016 6:56 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:dl3mkoFk04mU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> >> |But you still seem to be claiming that general relativity gives a factor >> |of exactly 1 [*] when it doesn't. >> >> Yes, it does >> >> |Regardless of whether general >> |relativity is a correct theory, it is still a set of mathematical >> |equations >> >> Wrong, lady. It's a mad ideology trying to persuade >> unsynchronized clocks as good and proper, and >> spitting on those who object. >> >> |, which do not give a factor of exactly 1 in this situation. >> >> Once again: Cs clock is a measurement pattern of Yours. >> No physics theory will predict any adjustment of >> its pattern. >> >> >> >> >> > > |I can easily construct a physics theory that makes such a prediction. It > |says that if two clocks are vertically separated, then the higher clock > |runs faster (as seen by the lower clock) by a factor of (1 + h/100) > |where h is the height difference. > > Yes. And You can easily confirm it with measurements: > 1)assume that good and proper clocks are clocks You've described, > 2)make good, proper clocks > 3)measure > > But You can't make this theory consistent with a desire of > synchronized clocks. Why not? If I adjust the higher clock to run slower than normal by that factor, then the clocks will stay synchronised. You indicated earlier that you were prepared to adjust clocks to keep them synchronised. Are you going back on that? > Either You want clocks to run Your guru's way - or You > don't want them. If You want both, You're inconsistent. A clock consists of some mechanism to measure time, and some mechanism to transmit knowledge of the measurement to interested parties. A typical examine would be a balance wheel to measure time, and a set of gears to transfer the result to hands on a dial. We can make adjustments to such a clock by changing the gear ratio, but the balance wheel continues to measure time just as it always did. Yes, I know that in practice such a clock is too inaccurate to use used in a GPS, but the principle is the same. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 10:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncj5dr$agm$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379509 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dl4j6kFqdnqU1@mid.individual.net... > |I can easily construct a physics theory that makes such a prediction. It > |says that if two clocks are vertically separated, then the higher clock > |runs faster (as seen by the lower clock) by a factor of (1 + h/100) > |where h is the height difference. > > Yes. And You can easily confirm it with measurements: > 1)assume that good and proper clocks are clocks You've described, > 2)make good, proper clocks > 3)measure > > But You can't make this theory consistent with a desire of > synchronized clocks. |Why not? If I adjust the higher clock to run slower than normal by that |factor, then the clocks will stay synchronised. But they won't meet Your initial requirements anynmore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 21:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl4oojFrs37U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379510 |
On 19/03/2016 8:16 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl4j6kFqdnqU1@mid.individual.net... > >> |I can easily construct a physics theory that makes such a prediction. It >> |says that if two clocks are vertically separated, then the higher clock >> |runs faster (as seen by the lower clock) by a factor of (1 + h/100) >> |where h is the height difference. >> >> Yes. And You can easily confirm it with measurements: >> 1)assume that good and proper clocks are clocks You've described, >> 2)make good, proper clocks >> 3)measure >> >> But You can't make this theory consistent with a desire of >> synchronized clocks. > > |Why not? If I adjust the higher clock to run slower than normal by that > |factor, then the clocks will stay synchronised. > > But they won't meet Your initial requirements anynmore. > Depends what my requirements are. If I want clocks that stay synchronised, then that'll do just fine. If I want clocks that report time that's consistent with the way physical processes occur in the vicinity of the clock, then I should leave them unadjusted. Anyway, that's disposed of your proposition that "No physics theory will predict any adjustment of its pattern." Now, the theory I proposed is not correct. So let's go back and look at general relativity. What now of your claim that it doesn't predict a difference in the face of the claims of the designers of GPS that it does? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 14:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncjijl$m56$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379511 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dl4oojFrs37U1@mid.individual.net... On 19/03/2016 8:16 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl4j6kFqdnqU1@mid.individual.net... > >> |I can easily construct a physics theory that makes such a prediction. It >> |says that if two clocks are vertically separated, then the higher clock >> |runs faster (as seen by the lower clock) by a factor of (1 + h/100) >> |where h is the height difference. >> >> Yes. And You can easily confirm it with measurements: >> 1)assume that good and proper clocks are clocks You've described, >> 2)make good, proper clocks >> 3)measure >> >> But You can't make this theory consistent with a desire of >> synchronized clocks. > > |Why not? If I adjust the higher clock to run slower than normal by that > |factor, then the clocks will stay synchronised. > > But they won't meet Your initial requirements anynmore. > |Depends what my requirements are. If I want clocks that stay |synchronised, then that'll do just fine. So, say goodbye to Your predictions You've described above. |Anyway, that's disposed of your proposition that "No physics theory will |predict any adjustment of its pattern." No, that's not. You haven't even said what this pattern is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 00:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl51s7Fu5k5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379514 |
On 20/03/2016 12:01 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl4oojFrs37U1@mid.individual.net... > > On 19/03/2016 8:16 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:dl4j6kFqdnqU1@mid.individual.net... >> >>> |I can easily construct a physics theory that makes such a >>> prediction. It >>> |says that if two clocks are vertically separated, then the higher clock >>> |runs faster (as seen by the lower clock) by a factor of (1 + h/100) >>> |where h is the height difference. >>> >>> Yes. And You can easily confirm it with measurements: >>> 1)assume that good and proper clocks are clocks You've described, >>> 2)make good, proper clocks >>> 3)measure >>> >>> But You can't make this theory consistent with a desire of >>> synchronized clocks. >> >> |Why not? If I adjust the higher clock to run slower than normal by that >> |factor, then the clocks will stay synchronised. >> >> But they won't meet Your initial requirements anynmore. >> > > |Depends what my requirements are. If I want clocks that stay > |synchronised, then that'll do just fine. > > So, say goodbye to Your predictions You've described > above. On the contrary, the predictions are exactly what I need. > > > |Anyway, that's disposed of your proposition that "No physics theory will > |predict any adjustment of its pattern." > > No, that's not. You haven't even said what this pattern is. Nor have you. You just introduced the word without defining it. I took it to be equivalent to "behaviour". Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncjktb$qb4$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379520 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dl51s7Fu5k5U1@mid.individual.net... On 20/03/2016 12:01 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl4oojFrs37U1@mid.individual.net... > > On 19/03/2016 8:16 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:dl4j6kFqdnqU1@mid.individual.net... >> >>> |I can easily construct a physics theory that makes such a >>> prediction. It >>> |says that if two clocks are vertically separated, then the higher clock >>> |runs faster (as seen by the lower clock) by a factor of (1 + h/100) >>> |where h is the height difference. >>> >>> Yes. And You can easily confirm it with measurements: >>> 1)assume that good and proper clocks are clocks You've described, >>> 2)make good, proper clocks >>> 3)measure >>> >>> But You can't make this theory consistent with a desire of >>> synchronized clocks. >> >> |Why not? If I adjust the higher clock to run slower than normal by that >> |factor, then the clocks will stay synchronised. >> >> But they won't meet Your initial requirements anynmore. >> > > |Depends what my requirements are. If I want clocks that stay > |synchronised, then that'll do just fine. > > So, say goodbye to Your predictions You've described > above. |On the contrary, the predictions are exactly what I need. If You make the clocks running at the same rate, Your prediction that one of them will be running faster is, unfortunately, wrong. You have to decide. Either You need clocks synchronized, or You need one of them running faster, than the other. You can't eat the cake and still have it. > > > |Anyway, that's disposed of your proposition that "No physics theory will > |predict any adjustment of its pattern." > > No, that's not. You haven't even said what this pattern is. |Nor have you. You just introduced the word without defining it. I took |it to be equivalent to "behaviour". A wrong translation of a Polish word from me. Seems I should use "prototype" instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web