Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386788 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-28 20:21 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-02 05:53 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 376 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-28 20:21 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 22:27 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 11:50 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 21:38 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 22:25 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-01 14:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 14:49 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-30 23:44 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 17:13 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 00:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 18:57 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 02:54 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 05:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 06:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 05:26 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-02 12:46 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 06:41 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 15:59 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 20:45 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 18:12 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-03 14:39 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 23:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-03 17:17 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 01:18 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-03 19:54 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 23:20 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:03 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 21:29 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:25 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-05 10:03 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:15 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-06 11:46 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-07 11:06 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 05:47 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:30 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 19:34 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 20:42 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:22 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:30 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:27 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:47 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 07:20 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 15:09 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 23:28 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 07:50 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 08:44 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 17:07 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 08:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:34 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:32 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:47 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 16:43 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:28 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 14:56 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-07-05 21:59 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:52 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:44 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 07:18 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 13:17 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 22:27 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-05 16:31 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:46 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-06 16:00 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:11 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:49 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:30 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:48 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 18:09 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:59 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 15:09 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-12 05:11 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 23:50 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 18:43 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 19:27 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:24 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 21:32 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 13:15 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:54 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-05 09:57 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-05 02:34 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-05 18:55 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:34 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 05:46 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 08:26 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 06:55 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 09:22 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 08:03 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 10:49 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 15:22 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 17:39 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 05:25 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 09:13 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 15:05 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 08:23 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 15:41 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 10:54 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-06 17:40 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 06:57 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:10 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-07 11:19 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-08 12:49 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-04 16:21 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 15:11 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 22:38 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 07:05 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 07:42 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 09:17 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-29 06:44 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-29 23:29 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 06:05 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:27 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 07:05 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:24 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 08:09 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 17:27 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 20:45 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:17 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-01 13:59 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:24 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:21 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 06:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 09:16 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 14:33 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 17:31 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 09:28 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 13:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 14:24 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-03 05:01 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 10:48 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:03 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 13:30 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:35 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-05 06:38 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-05 11:18 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 13:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 06:03 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 08:43 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 08:17 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 15:33 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 06:04 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 09:24 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 09:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:24 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 17:54 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 04:30 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 05:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 14:24 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 15:08 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-09 03:11 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-09 05:28 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 07:36 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-10 03:53 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-10 05:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:24 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:56 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 07:47 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 06:42 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:22 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 13:04 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 07:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 05:48 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-08 06:27 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 08:59 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 15:24 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 14:58 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:22 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:48 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 07:46 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 06:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:21 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 13:01 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:29 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-12 15:19 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 08:39 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:15 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:22 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 07:43 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:14 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:35 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:46 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-15 21:46 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 07:06 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-16 09:19 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-17 02:48 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 05:05 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:52 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 11:55 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:45 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 05:59 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:36 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 19:59 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:47 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 06:02 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:34 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 09:02 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 11:15 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 17:23 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:34 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 10:41 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:44 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:46 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:53 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 11:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:30 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 07:16 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:00 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 11:17 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:34 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 05:58 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 08:41 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 14:06 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:42 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-21 04:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:20 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:37 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 04:41 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:52 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 15:33 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 10:31 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:41 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-20 08:34 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 18:04 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-19 08:39 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:27 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:53 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 11:48 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-17 10:30 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 11:50 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-18 08:42 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:29 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-19 08:43 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-20 08:25 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 18:03 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-20 12:51 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-20 18:54 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:29 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-13 14:59 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:26 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 13:30 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 08:44 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:58 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-15 16:17 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-07 14:53 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 09:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-07 16:35 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:07 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 05:22 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 07:43 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 10:53 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 13:53 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:07 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 22:25 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 17:41 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-07 02:52 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 05:38 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 09:20 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 09:18 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:09 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 11:05 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 09:24 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:26 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 05:27 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 07:46 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:05 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 10:40 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:02 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 13:23 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:33 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:52 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 06:00 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:21 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 07:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:26 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 04:16 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 20:52 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:19 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-01 14:02 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-03 20:14 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 09:27 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 02:58 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 17:00 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 09:18 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:43 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 11:00 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 05:50 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 16:58 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-02 10:41 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:52 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 05:55 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-06 13:07 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:24 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-07 14:54 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-10 10:03 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-10 14:47 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-12 05:06 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-11 23:01 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-13 08:19 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-13 21:05 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 00:05 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 12:47 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:52 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 07:12 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:42 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 15:35 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-10 10:08 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-10 13:22 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:27 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-13 08:23 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-13 16:26 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-12 23:55 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 06:50 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 07:17 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-13 11:27 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 13:45 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 23:30 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 06:24 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 08:42 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:22 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-16 08:38 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:18 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:47 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 11:46 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:39 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 05:51 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 07:06 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-17 16:11 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 07:44 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 09:41 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 12:45 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 18:07 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 04:47 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:54 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:34 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-03 15:02 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-03 11:42 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 06:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 09:23 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 19:12 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:37 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:26 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 04:38 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 09:05 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 04:41 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 20:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 05:07 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 02:46 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:51 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:36 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 04:49 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 09:01 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:40 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-01 08:41 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 05:53 +1000
Page 1 of 19 [1] 2 3 … 19 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 20:21 +1000 |
| Subject | How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? |
| Message-ID | <nktj3e$29b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
A rod has a light source and a clock at each end.
C1_________L__________C2
Light signals are sent from one end to the other and the clocks are
adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to measure the travel
times in opposite direction to be equal, as they must be due to
symmetry. Their readings when the signals leave and arrive are recorded
and are clearly visible.
An observer moving past the rod says the clocks are wrongly set because
according to his university text, the signals are moving at c in his
frame and the rod is moving. Therefore the signals take different times
to transit the rod.
C1_________L__________C2
O2>v
O2 says the signals take times L'/(c+/-v) to cross the rod in the two
directions...when it is obvious that the times must be equal.
Q) How can every passing observer have an influence on what the clocks
should read?
Need I say more?
I really think this example highlights the degree of the insanity that
afflicts all supporters of that king of science fiction.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nktpr2$oi2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386788 |
>Subject: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Ralph, why do you use derogatory terms for people on "your" side by calling them Dingleberries? After all, a Dingleberry is a follower of the works of Herbert Dingle, an anti-relativity crackpot, and I would think that you would be a fan of Mr. Dingle, and wouldn't make fun of his name!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 22:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtf8opFs4cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386788 |
On 28/06/2016 8:21 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. > > C1_________L__________C2 > > Light signals are sent from one end to the other and the clocks are > adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to measure the travel > times in opposite direction to be equal, as they must be due to > symmetry. Their readings when the signals leave and arrive are recorded > and are clearly visible. > > An observer moving past the rod says the clocks are wrongly set because > according to his university text, the signals are moving at c in his > frame and the rod is moving. Therefore the signals take different times > to transit the rod. > > C1_________L__________C2 > O2>v > > O2 says the signals take times L'/(c+/-v) to cross the rod in the two > directions...when it is obvious that the times must be equal. > > Q) How can every passing observer have an influence on what the clocks > should read? > Need I say more? Yes. Since the moving observer cannot be at C1 when the light signal reaches it, and also at C2 when the other light signal reaches it, the observer has to observe at least one of these events from a distance, and then extrapolate when the event occurred based on its distance and the speed of light. So you need to discuss the ramifications of that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 11:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtjc6fFqde5U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386798 |
On 28/06/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/06/2016 8:21 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. >> >> C1_________L__________C2 >> >> Light signals are sent from one end to the other and the clocks are >> adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to measure the travel >> times in opposite direction to be equal, as they must be due to >> symmetry. Their readings when the signals leave and arrive are recorded >> and are clearly visible. >> >> An observer moving past the rod says the clocks are wrongly set because >> according to his university text, the signals are moving at c in his >> frame and the rod is moving. Therefore the signals take different times >> to transit the rod. >> >> C1_________L__________C2 >> O2>v >> >> O2 says the signals take times L'/(c+/-v) to cross the rod in the two >> directions...when it is obvious that the times must be equal. >> >> Q) How can every passing observer have an influence on what the clocks >> should read? >> Need I say more? > > Yes. Since the moving observer cannot be at C1 when the light signal > reaches it, and also at C2 when the other light signal reaches it, the > observer has to observe at least one of these events from a distance, > and then extrapolate when the event occurred based on its distance and > the speed of light. > > So you need to discuss the ramifications of that. > > Sylvia. > Not going to? Too hard? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 21:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl30cc$1k27$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386948 |
On 30/06/16 11:50, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/06/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/06/2016 8:21 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. >>> >>> C1_________L__________C2 >>> >>> Light signals are sent from one end to the other and the clocks >>> are adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to measure >>> the travel times in opposite direction to be equal, as they must >>> be due to symmetry. Their readings when the signals leave and >>> arrive are recorded and are clearly visible. >>> >>> An observer moving past the rod says the clocks are wrongly set >>> because according to his university text, the signals are moving >>> at c in his frame and the rod is moving. Therefore the signals >>> take different times to transit the rod. >>> >>> C1_________L__________C2 O2>v >>> >>> O2 says the signals take times L'/(c+/-v) to cross the rod in the >>> two directions...when it is obvious that the times must be >>> equal. >>> >>> Q) How can every passing observer have an influence on what the >>> clocks should read? Need I say more? >> >> Yes. Since the moving observer cannot be at C1 when the light >> signal reaches it, and also at C2 when the other light signal >> reaches it, the observer has to observe at least one of these >> events from a distance, and then extrapolate when the event >> occurred based on its distance and the speed of light. >> >> So you need to discuss the ramifications of that. >> >> Sylvia. >> > > Not going to? Too hard? Maybe you didn't get the right picture. The observer on the rod knows that the light signals take the same time to transit the rod in opposite directions purely because of symmetry. He can synch his clocks most easily by repeatedly sending a signal from A to B, reflecting it immediately back to A and adjusting the clocks until tA'-tB and tB = tA. Those times are then displayed digitally. and are made available to every observer who will be reassured that the signals take the same times to cross the rod in both directions, as they must. > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 22:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtkhd3F2s25U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386965 |
On 30/06/2016 9:38 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/06/16 11:50, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/06/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 28/06/2016 8:21 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. >>>> >>>> C1_________L__________C2 >>>> >>>> Light signals are sent from one end to the other and the clocks >>>> are adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to measure >>>> the travel times in opposite direction to be equal, as they must >>>> be due to symmetry. Their readings when the signals leave and >>>> arrive are recorded and are clearly visible. >>>> >>>> An observer moving past the rod says the clocks are wrongly set >>>> because according to his university text, the signals are moving >>>> at c in his frame and the rod is moving. Therefore the signals >>>> take different times to transit the rod. >>>> >>>> C1_________L__________C2 O2>v >>>> >>>> O2 says the signals take times L'/(c+/-v) to cross the rod in the >>>> two directions...when it is obvious that the times must be >>>> equal. >>>> >>>> Q) How can every passing observer have an influence on what the >>>> clocks should read? Need I say more? >>> >>> Yes. Since the moving observer cannot be at C1 when the light >>> signal reaches it, and also at C2 when the other light signal >>> reaches it, the observer has to observe at least one of these >>> events from a distance, and then extrapolate when the event >>> occurred based on its distance and the speed of light. >>> >>> So you need to discuss the ramifications of that. >>> >>> Sylvia. >>> >> >> Not going to? Too hard? > > Maybe you didn't get the right picture. > The observer on the rod knows that the light signals take the same time > to transit the rod in opposite directions purely because of symmetry. > He can synch his clocks most easily by repeatedly sending a signal from > A to B, reflecting it immediately back to A and adjusting the clocks > until tA'-tB and tB = tA. Those times are then displayed digitally. > and are made available to every observer who will be reassured that the > signals take the same times to cross the rod in both directions, as they > must. > All observers will conclude that the light signals take the same time to transit the rod in opposite directions in the frame of the observer on the rod. This will not be much a of a revelation to them, and says nothing about how long things take in their own frames. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 14:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl4qav$1klq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386967 |
On 30/06/16 22:25, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 30/06/2016 9:38 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Not going to? Too hard? >> >> Maybe you didn't get the right picture. >> The observer on the rod knows that the light signals take the same time >> to transit the rod in opposite directions purely because of symmetry. >> He can synch his clocks most easily by repeatedly sending a signal from >> A to B, reflecting it immediately back to A and adjusting the clocks >> until tA'-tB and tB = tA. Those times are then displayed digitally. >> and are made available to every observer who will be reassured that the >> signals take the same times to cross the rod in both directions, as they >> must. >> > > All observers will conclude that the light signals take the same time to > transit the rod in opposite directions in the frame of the observer on > the rod. This will not be much a of a revelation to them, and says > nothing about how long things take in their own frames. Since the clocks of all (inertial) observers have a fixed rate relative to those on the rod and since each of the latter advance by the same amounts during the opposite transits, it is obvious that all clocks of all observers also advance by the same amounts during the opposite transits. Therefore all observers must agree that the light signals take the same time to transit the rod. > Sylvia. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 14:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtmb3eFduaoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387013 |
On 1/07/2016 2:07 PM, HGW wrote: > On 30/06/16 22:25, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 30/06/2016 9:38 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > >>>> >>>> Not going to? Too hard? >>> >>> Maybe you didn't get the right picture. >>> The observer on the rod knows that the light signals take the same time >>> to transit the rod in opposite directions purely because of symmetry. >>> He can synch his clocks most easily by repeatedly sending a signal from >>> A to B, reflecting it immediately back to A and adjusting the clocks >>> until tA'-tB and tB = tA. Those times are then displayed digitally. >>> and are made available to every observer who will be reassured that the >>> signals take the same times to cross the rod in both directions, as they >>> must. >>> >> >> All observers will conclude that the light signals take the same time to >> transit the rod in opposite directions in the frame of the observer on >> the rod. This will not be much a of a revelation to them, and says >> nothing about how long things take in their own frames. > > Since the clocks of all (inertial) observers have a fixed rate relative > to those on the rod and since each of the latter advance by the same > amounts during the opposite transits, it is obvious that all clocks of > all observers also advance by the same amounts during the opposite > transits. Therefore all observers must agree that the light signals take > the same time to transit the rod. To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not synchronised. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 23:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <650d891e-426d-448e-967c-c2c34c9cb29e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387015 |
W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:49:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not > synchronised. And, of course, an observer going through a street will notice trees and lanterns running around him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtmjfsFffcoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387018 |
On 1/07/2016 4:44 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:49:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not >> synchronised. > > And, of course, an observer going through a street > will notice trees and lanterns running around him. > Oh, you want to dive down that tunnel again, do you? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 00:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d77984c8-5bce-4a72-94d5-8b74ca2bff5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387022 |
W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 09:13:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 1/07/2016 4:44 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:49:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not > >> synchronised. > > > > And, of course, an observer going through a street > > will notice trees and lanterns running around him. > > > Oh, you want to dive down that tunnel again, do you? > No. I'm just pointing the obvious fact that relativistic tales of observers had nothing in common with reality even in Galileo's time. Observers are simply too complicated for You and Your theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 18:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtmpklFgmajU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387023 |
On 1/07/2016 5:21 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 09:13:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 1/07/2016 4:44 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:49:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>> >>>> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not >>>> synchronised. >>> >>> And, of course, an observer going through a street >>> will notice trees and lanterns running around him. >>> >> Oh, you want to dive down that tunnel again, do you? >> > > No. I'm just pointing the obvious fact that relativistic > tales of observers had nothing in common with reality > even in Galileo's time. > Observers are simply too complicated for You and Your > theories. > No, you're just restarting your bizarre straw-man attack on relativity. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 02:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78e4a048-95c5-44a6-a87f-c7a772fe289e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387026 |
W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 10:58:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 1/07/2016 5:21 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 09:13:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 1/07/2016 4:44 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:49:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>> > >>>> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not > >>>> synchronised. > >>> > >>> And, of course, an observer going through a street > >>> will notice trees and lanterns running around him. > >>> > >> Oh, you want to dive down that tunnel again, do you? > >> > > > > No. I'm just pointing the obvious fact that relativistic > > tales of observers had nothing in common with reality > > even in Galileo's time. > > Observers are simply too complicated for You and Your > > theories. > > > > No, you're just restarting your bizarre straw-man attack on relativity. > Sylvia, observation is a complicated process, and its CLUE is - that the result is unpredictable. If our observations were predictable, we could never build brandly new theories. Your theoretical predictable observers making predictable observations - are naive, primitive and stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 05:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a927cc65-672c-4c26-9efa-745466b6f489@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387022 |
El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 3:13:03 (UTC-4), Sylvia Else escribió: > On 1/07/2016 4:44 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:49:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not > >> synchronised. > > > > And, of course, an observer going through a street > > will notice trees and lanterns running around him. > > > Oh, you want to dive down that tunnel again, do you? > > Sylvia. Yes, the troll loves to do that!!! One of my colleagues had a flight from Oakland, Australia, to Santiago, Chile. He departed Oakland at 9am and landed at Santiago at 9am, Ask him who was doing the move?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 07:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl5ov5$178m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387022 |
On 7/1/2016 2:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/07/2016 4:44 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:49:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else >> napisał: >> >>> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not >>> synchronised. >> >> And, of course, an observer going through a street >> will notice trees and lanterns running around him. >> > Oh, you want to dive down that tunnel again, do you? > > Sylvia. Maciel apparently believes that the number of objects determines who is moving and who is not. So if it is a question whether he is moving or whether it is all the rocks and trees, well, obviously common sense tells him that it is more likely the rocks and trees are stationary and it is he who is moving. And then, by the very same common sense, he would look up in the sky and notice that the sun is moving, and if questioned whether it is the sun is moving or all the rocks and trees and buildings, then of course it is the sun that is moving and not all the rocks and trees and buildings. Thereby proving that the sun revolves around the earth. Viva la common sense. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef1c02ed-2dc1-4356-90a6-c6be616c331e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387035 |
W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 14:50:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 7/1/2016 2:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 1/07/2016 4:44 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:49:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > >> napisał: > >> > >>> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not > >>> synchronised. > >> > >> And, of course, an observer going through a street > >> will notice trees and lanterns running around him. > >> > > Oh, you want to dive down that tunnel again, do you? > > > > Sylvia. > > Maciel apparently believes that the number of objects determines who is > moving and who is not. No, poor idiot, you're imagining, as usual. It's the observer who determines it; and, unfortunately, he usually determines it against your Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 05:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl6g53$fq1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387015 |
On 01/07/16 14:49, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/07/2016 2:07 PM, HGW wrote: >> On 30/06/16 22:25, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 30/06/2016 9:38 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> >>>>> >>>>> Not going to? Too hard? >>>> >>>> Maybe you didn't get the right picture. The observer on the >>>> rod knows that the light signals take the same time to transit >>>> the rod in opposite directions purely because of symmetry. He >>>> can synch his clocks most easily by repeatedly sending a >>>> signal from A to B, reflecting it immediately back to A and >>>> adjusting the clocks until tA'-tB and tB = tA. Those times are >>>> then displayed digitally. and are made available to every >>>> observer who will be reassured that the signals take the same >>>> times to cross the rod in both directions, as they must. >>>> >>> >>> All observers will conclude that the light signals take the same >>> time to transit the rod in opposite directions in the frame of >>> the observer on the rod. This will not be much a of a revelation >>> to them, and says nothing about how long things take in their >>> own frames. >> >> Since the clocks of all (inertial) observers have a fixed rate >> relative to those on the rod and since each of the latter advance >> by the same amounts during the opposite transits, it is obvious >> that all clocks of all observers also advance by the same amounts >> during the opposite transits. Therefore all observers must agree >> that the light signals take the same time to transit the rod. > > To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not > synchronised. Think before you write. You are merely preaching Einstein's flawed RoS. I am showing you why his derivation is wrong. The plain fact is, the light from the sources on the rod cannot be moving at c in the moving observer's frame. If it did, the transit times would be different according to that observer and his clocks would advance by different amounts during those opposite transits. They are known to advance by the SAME amounts because their rates are in fixed ratio with the moving clock rates.. That us probably too hard for you to understand. > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 12:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtoo7rFsp8qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387053 |
On 2/07/2016 5:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 01/07/16 14:49, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 1/07/2016 2:07 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On 30/06/16 22:25, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 30/06/2016 9:38 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not going to? Too hard? >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you didn't get the right picture. The observer on the >>>>> rod knows that the light signals take the same time to transit >>>>> the rod in opposite directions purely because of symmetry. He >>>>> can synch his clocks most easily by repeatedly sending a >>>>> signal from A to B, reflecting it immediately back to A and >>>>> adjusting the clocks until tA'-tB and tB = tA. Those times are >>>>> then displayed digitally. and are made available to every >>>>> observer who will be reassured that the signals take the same >>>>> times to cross the rod in both directions, as they must. >>>>> >>>> >>>> All observers will conclude that the light signals take the same >>>> time to transit the rod in opposite directions in the frame of >>>> the observer on the rod. This will not be much a of a revelation >>>> to them, and says nothing about how long things take in their >>>> own frames. >>> >>> Since the clocks of all (inertial) observers have a fixed rate >>> relative to those on the rod and since each of the latter advance >>> by the same amounts during the opposite transits, it is obvious >>> that all clocks of all observers also advance by the same amounts >>> during the opposite transits. Therefore all observers must agree >>> that the light signals take the same time to transit the rod. >> >> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not >> synchronised. > > Think before you write. > You are merely preaching Einstein's flawed RoS. > I am showing you why his derivation is wrong. > The plain fact is, the light from the sources on the rod cannot be > moving at c in the moving observer's frame. If it did, the transit times > would be different according to that observer and his clocks would > advance by different amounts during those opposite transits. > They are known to advance by the SAME amounts because their rates are in > fixed ratio with the moving clock rates.. > > That us probably too hard for you to understand. > >> Sylvia. >> > If you suppose that your moving observer passes the midpoint of the rod at the time the two light pulses are emitted, then it's clear that the pulses will reach the ends of the rod before the moving observer reaches either of them. So to talk about how long the pulses took to get there in the moving observer's frame, you have to suppose that you can attach a meaning to the time that elapses between the sending event (where the moving observer was), and two other events that are remote from the moving observer. The time at which remote events occur is the crux of the matter. You can't just ignore it. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 06:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl98tv$8pf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387076 |
On 02/07/16 12:46, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/07/2016 5:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not >>> synchronised. >> >> Think before you write. >> You are merely preaching Einstein's flawed RoS. >> I am showing you why his derivation is wrong. >> The plain fact is, the light from the sources on the rod cannot be >> moving at c in the moving observer's frame. If it did, the transit times >> would be different according to that observer and his clocks would >> advance by different amounts during those opposite transits. >> They are known to advance by the SAME amounts because their rates are in >> fixed ratio with the moving clock rates.. >> >> That us probably too hard for you to understand. >> >>> Sylvia. >>> >> > > If you suppose that your moving observer passes the midpoint of the rod > at the time the two light pulses are emitted, then it's clear that the > pulses will reach the ends of the rod before the moving observer reaches > either of them. > > So to talk about how long the pulses took to get there in the moving > observer's frame, you have to suppose that you can attach a meaning to > the time that elapses between the sending event (where the moving > observer was), and two other events that are remote from the moving > observer. > > The time at which remote events occur is the crux of the matter. You > can't just ignore it. You seem to be missing the point altogether. It has nothing to do with when the moving observer measures anything. It is about what the moving observer believes, according to Einstein, when he LEARNS that the clocks on the rod (moving in his frame) do the following two things. Firstly, as set, they MEASURE OWLS to be the same in both directions and secondly, their readings are KNOWN to advance by the same amounts during the transits, due to symmetry. Now, according to P2, the signals move at c in the moving observer's frame and therefore should take the DIFFERENT times, L'/(c+v) and L'/(c-v) to cross the rod...and so according to Einstein, that means the clocks are out of synch in the moving observer's frame even though in correct synch in the rod frame. The trouble is, according to every known theory, every inertial clock in the universe has a fixed rates with every other clock, no matter how they are relatively moving. So we have a logical impossibility. Einstein CALCULATES that the moving observer's clocks should advance by DIFFERENT amounts during the actual transits yet THEORY says they must advance by the SAME amounts because of their fixed rate relationship with the rod's clocks. Get it now? > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 15:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16e046bf-06f5-4385-aa24-29871bb299ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387090 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 1:41:40 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > So we have a logical impossibility. Einstein CALCULATES > that the moving observer's clocks should advance by DIFFERENT > amounts during the actual transits yet THEORY says they must > advance by the SAME amounts because of their fixed rate > relationship with the rod's clocks. To be clear, let's label the emissions and reception events: Event 1: A light pulse is emitted from Clock 1. Event 2: A light pulse is emitted from Clock 2. Event 3: The pulse emitted from Clock 1 arrives at Clock 2. Event 4: The pulse emitted from Clock 2 arrives at Clock 1. Letting Tj signify the reading of the rod clock at event j, we know that T3-T1 equals T4-T2 (i.e., equal travel times for the light, with synchronized rod clocks). Now let tj denote the times on a system of clocks co-moving with the moving observer, and synchronized according to moving frame. I think what you are saying is that, since the clocks in the moving frame all advance at the same fixed rate in relation to the rod clocks, it must follow that t3-t1 equals t4-t2. Your premise is correct, but your conclusion is not, because from the fixed rate relation between rod clocks and moving clocks all we can conclude is that t4-t1 equals t3-t2. In other words, the elapsed time between emission and reception for Clock 1 must equal the elapsed time between emission and reception for Clock 2, and this equality holds for both the rod frame and the moving observer's frame. We also know that t2-t1 equals t3-t4, because this is the amount by which the clocks are out of sync in terms of the moving observer's clocks, and this doesn't change. By simple arithmetic it follows that (t3-t1)-(t4-t2) = 2(t2-t1), so this explains why (t3-t1) does not equal (t4-t2), because the rod clocks are synchronized differently than the moving observer's clocks. On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 1:41:40 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > C1_________L__________C2 > O2>v Have you ever tried drawing your scenario on a two-dimensional diagram, with one axis representing spatial positions and the other axis representing the times? A drawing like that makes it very clear what is happening, and how the two different coordinate systems are related to each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 19 [1] 2 3 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web