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 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 12:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl6edqFar4eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379524 |
On 20/03/2016 12:40 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > 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. The prediction is that an *unadjusted* clock will run faster. I'd have thought that was obvious. Your statement above smacks of intellectual dishonesty. > >> |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. > That really changes nothing, since it just means you've introduced the word "prototype" without defining it in this context, and the usual meaning of the word in English doesn't fit well with how you appear to want to use it. Instead of pulling words out the air that may, or may not, have the meaning you intend, why not just explain in simple words what you mean? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 11:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nclu1l$v9q$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379573 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dl6edqFar4eU1@mid.individual.net... On 20/03/2016 12:40 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > 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. |The prediction is that an *unadjusted* clock will run faster. Surely, it will. It's obvoious - unadjusted clocks will go at rate depending on how high they are... and as there no unadjusted clocks, who could deny? A brilliant prophecy. It's amazing people still are treating Your bunch seriously. I hope it won't last long. |I'd have |thought that was obvious. So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 22:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl7gc3FikkaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379585 |
On 20/03/2016 9:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl6edqFar4eU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 20/03/2016 12:40 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > |The prediction is that an *unadjusted* clock will run faster. > > Surely, it will. > It's obvoious - unadjusted clocks will go at rate > depending on how high they are... and as there > no unadjusted clocks, who could deny? > A brilliant prophecy. > It's amazing people still are treating Your bunch > seriously. I hope it won't last long. > > > |I'd have > |thought that was obvious. > > So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" > theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it? > Been done. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314656/Scientists-prove-time-really-does-pass-quicker-higher-altitude.html> Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 14:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncm7a2$89s$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379588 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dl7gc3FikkaU1@mid.individual.net... On 20/03/2016 9:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl6edqFar4eU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 20/03/2016 12:40 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > |The prediction is that an *unadjusted* clock will run faster. > > Surely, it will. > It's obvoious - unadjusted clocks will go at rate > depending on how high they are... and as there > no unadjusted clocks, who could deny? > A brilliant prophecy. > It's amazing people still are treating Your bunch > seriously. I hope it won't last long. > > > |I'd have > |thought that was obvious. > > So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" > theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it? > |Been done. With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. OK, I'm tired. So, a little summary: Your standard won't pass. We will make clocks our way, not Yours. You can do nothing about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6fd874e-6f59-4177-a55f-24777de28196@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379596 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 7:07:16 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl7gc3FikkaU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > On 20/03/2016 9:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" > > theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it? > > > > Been done. > > With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. > OK, I'm tired. > So, a little summary: > Your standard won't pass. We will make clocks our way, > not Yours. You can do nothing about it. "We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You are paranoid if you believe anyone wants to do anything about it. I doubt if you'll be making any clocks whatsoever. The little old Swiss watchmaker you ain't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 16:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncmeo9$f81$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379599 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:b6fd874e-6f59-4177-a55f-24777de28196@googlegroups.com... On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 7:07:16 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl7gc3FikkaU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > On 20/03/2016 9:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" > > theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it? > > > > Been done. > > With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. > OK, I'm tired. > So, a little summary: > Your standard won't pass. We will make clocks our way, > not Yours. You can do nothing about it. |"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? |You are paranoid if you believe anyone wants to do anything about it. You're paranoid if you believe anyone will follow your naked emperor for long. Well, you're paranoid anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a39fe70-224a-4bec-8f3e-e86d3be6fc7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379607 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 9:14:18 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:b6fd874e-6f59-4177-a55f-24777de28196@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 7:07:16 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > So, a little summary: > > > Your standard won't pass. We will make clocks our way, > > not Yours. You can do nothing about it. > > > > "We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? > > You are paranoid if you believe anyone wants to do anything about it. > > You're paranoid if you believe anyone will follow your > naked emperor for long. > Well, you're paranoid anyway. How very juvenile of you: "Oh yeah, well so are you!" behavior. And you still haven't told us the name of your mouse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 18:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncmmsm$ntn$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379614 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:5a39fe70-224a-4bec-8f3e-e86d3be6fc7e@googlegroups.com... On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 9:14:18 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:b6fd874e-6f59-4177-a55f-24777de28196@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 7:07:16 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > So, a little summary: > > > Your standard won't pass. We will make clocks our way, > > not Yours. You can do nothing about it. > > > > "We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? > > You are paranoid if you believe anyone wants to do anything about it. > > You're paranoid if you believe anyone will follow your > naked emperor for long. > Well, you're paranoid anyway. |How very juvenile of you: "Oh yeah, well so are you!" behavior. And |you still haven't told us the name of your mouse. Well, my mouse made those clocks on GPS. You know, those clocks you had to claim unreal because they don't match The Shit of your insane guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ce228d5-1243-47b5-8017-153a940eb3ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379618 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:33:11 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Well, my mouse made those clocks on GPS. You know, > those clocks you had to claim unreal because they don't > match The Shit of your insane guru. My but you are delusional ... and a liar, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 23:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b77b02a4-f718-4205-8ad4-7dae20ec0912@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379647 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 01:16:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:33:11 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Well, my mouse made those clocks on GPS. You know, > > those clocks you had to claim unreal because they don't > > match The Shit of your insane guru. > > My but you are delusional ... and a liar, too. Do you want a quoting, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a935f10f-10c9-4970-8771-dbf493ec8c70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379596 |
El domingo, 20 de marzo de 2016, 10:07:16 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > |Been done. > > With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. > OK, I'm tired. We are also tired of your trolling. We hope you go away for good!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncmheb$i3g$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379610 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:a935f10f-10c9-4970-8771-dbf493ec8c70@googlegroups.com... El domingo, 20 de marzo de 2016, 10:07:16 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > |Been done. > > With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. > OK, I'm tired. |We are also tired of your trolling. We hope you go away for good!!! Keep dreaming, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 12:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl90hpFf7vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379596 |
On 21/03/2016 12:07 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dl7gc3FikkaU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 20/03/2016 9:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:dl6edqFar4eU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> On 20/03/2016 12:40 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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. >> >> |The prediction is that an *unadjusted* clock will run faster. >> >> Surely, it will. >> It's obvoious - unadjusted clocks will go at rate >> depending on how high they are... and as there >> no unadjusted clocks, who could deny? >> A brilliant prophecy. >> It's amazing people still are treating Your bunch >> seriously. I hope it won't last long. >> >> >> |I'd have >> |thought that was obvious. >> >> So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" >> theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it? >> > > |Been done. > > With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. No, not adjusted at all. They did not adjust either clock when one was raised. > OK, I'm tired. > So, a little summary: > Your standard won't pass. We will make clocks our way, > not Yours. You can do nothing about it. You have never indicated what "your way" is, although at one point you accepted that idea that you could deem one clock the master, and adjust the others to keep them synchronised to the master. Of course, that means that your clocks are mostly adjusted clocks. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ad0f4ab-03ef-4037-ad13-7b6532e43039@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379652 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 02:19:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 21/03/2016 12:07 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:dl7gc3FikkaU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > On 20/03/2016 9:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> > >> > >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >> dyskusyjnych:dl6edqFar4eU1@mid.individual.net... > >> > >> On 20/03/2016 12:40 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> 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. > >> > >> |The prediction is that an *unadjusted* clock will run faster. > >> > >> Surely, it will. > >> It's obvoious - unadjusted clocks will go at rate > >> depending on how high they are... and as there > >> no unadjusted clocks, who could deny? > >> A brilliant prophecy. > >> It's amazing people still are treating Your bunch > >> seriously. I hope it won't last long. > >> > >> > >> |I'd have > >> |thought that was obvious. > >> > >> So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" > >> theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it? > >> > > > > |Been done. > > > > With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. > > No, not adjusted at all. They did not adjust either clock when one was > raised. Whay can I say? A sad, obvious lie. Well, no surprise. > You have never indicated what "your way" is, although at one point you And another lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 21:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dla1smF87utU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379673 |
On 21/03/2016 5:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 02:19:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 21/03/2016 12:07 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>> >>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>> dyskusyjnych:dl7gc3FikkaU1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>> On 20/03/2016 9:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>> dyskusyjnych:dl6edqFar4eU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> >>>> On 20/03/2016 12:40 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> |The prediction is that an *unadjusted* clock will run faster. >>>> >>>> Surely, it will. >>>> It's obvoious - unadjusted clocks will go at rate >>>> depending on how high they are... and as there >>>> no unadjusted clocks, who could deny? >>>> A brilliant prophecy. >>>> It's amazing people still are treating Your bunch >>>> seriously. I hope it won't last long. >>>> >>>> >>>> |I'd have >>>> |thought that was obvious. >>>> >>>> So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" >>>> theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it? >>>> >>> >>> |Been done. >>> >>> With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. >> >> No, not adjusted at all. They did not adjust either clock when one was >> raised. > > Whay can I say? > A sad, obvious lie. > Well, no surprise. > > >> You have never indicated what "your way" is, although at one point you > > And another lie. > So, from your original posting ---- A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with every n ticks of this oscillator. Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? --- we've reached the point where you just claim that any evidence that contradicts your position is a lie. That's all you had to offer. Pity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 04:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6347811-11e4-4db9-9953-8d064f68b9f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379680 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 11:48:58 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 21/03/2016 5:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 02:19:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 21/03/2016 12:07 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>> dyskusyjnych:dl7gc3FikkaU1@mid.individual.net... > >>> > >>> On 20/03/2016 9:28 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>>> dyskusyjnych:dl6edqFar4eU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>> > >>>> On 20/03/2016 12:40 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> |The prediction is that an *unadjusted* clock will run faster. > >>>> > >>>> Surely, it will. > >>>> It's obvoious - unadjusted clocks will go at rate > >>>> depending on how high they are... and as there > >>>> no unadjusted clocks, who could deny? > >>>> A brilliant prophecy. > >>>> It's amazing people still are treating Your bunch > >>>> seriously. I hope it won't last long. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> |I'd have > >>>> |thought that was obvious. > >>>> > >>>> So "unadjusted clocks will [sth] " is the "physical" > >>>> theory of Yours. Now, how are You going to test it? > >>>> > >>> > >>> |Been done. > >>> > >>> With "unadjusted" clocks, adjusted as Great Guru said. > >> > >> No, not adjusted at all. They did not adjust either clock when one was > >> raised. > > > > Whay can I say? > > A sad, obvious lie. > > Well, no surprise. > > > > > >> You have never indicated what "your way" is, although at one point you > > > > And another lie. > > > > So, from your original posting > > ---- > A clock has an internal oscillator and is set to switch a second with > every n ticks of this oscillator. > > Now really challenging question for a relativistic moron: > What is the period of the oscillator tick measured by this clock? > --- > > we've reached the point where you just claim that any evidence that > contradicts your position is a lie. And, next lie. Never claimed such thing. That's all You had to offer. No surprise. I understand, that Your "standard" is so proper, obvious, honest, just, historically necessary etc, that adjusting a clock to it is like not adjusting it at all. That's why I 'm calling You "a brainwashed fanatic".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 04:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98ad0551-39a6-4c97-b4a6-a42da610a001@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379410 |
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:23:38 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@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. > 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. The Polish troll continues to amaze me with his inability to keep a science talk. All what he does is assert wrong things without any support.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 04:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ad57cc6-42f7-4c0c-96a0-4c61bbd1aab6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379420 |
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 12:21:42 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:23:38 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@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. > > 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. > > The Polish troll continues to amaze me with his inability to keep a science talk. All what he does is assert wrong things without any support. Relativistic moron continues to confirm his inability to keep a science talk. All what he does is raving and spitting. As expected from relativistic trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5b660f8-03b2-458a-8c7a-fc1ea81ca546@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379420 |
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 4:21:42 AM UTC-7, paparios wrote: > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:23:38 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@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. > > 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. > > The Polish troll continues to amaze me with his inability to keep a science talk. All what he does is assert wrong things without any support. He is an interesting study in descent into mental disturbance. He seems to have posted here first in 1997 and appeared normal then. Had some questions, people answered them, and that was that. He then disappeared and came back in 2013, this time a full-blown wacko. Within weeks he got his butt kicked so he added vulgar language and a permanent Shkreli-like(*) smirk throughout. I'm still waiting for him to make a single correct technical statement. Other than that he relies mostly on what I call "magic incantations": stock phrases meant as "answers" whenever he feels cornered. (*)An obvious autism and arrested emotional development case, BTW. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 21:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nchpgi$11l$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379448 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:f5b660f8-03b2-458a-8c7a-fc1ea81ca546@googlegroups.com... |Within weeks he got his butt kicked You mean your screams "these are not questions!!! These are RANTS!!!!" of course. |I'm still waiting for him to make a single correct technical statement. About 2-dimensional imagined ants , probably. |Other than that he relies mostly on what I call "magic incantations": |stock phrases meant as "answers" whenever he feels cornered. While you, in opposition, can yell "not even wrong!!!!!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web