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 3 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlh8u0$1ni7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387242 |
On 7/5/2016 4:22 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > LTs don't exist. They were invented purely to avoid accepting the > obvious after the MMX proved BaTh correct. When you say that they don't exist, and yet they were invented, what does "existence" mean to you? TVs exist because they were invented. Are you saying that TVs don't exist? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljm2k$1404$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387246 |
On 06/07/16 07:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/2016 4:22 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> LTs don't exist. They were invented purely to avoid accepting the >> obvious after the MMX proved BaTh correct. > > When you say that they don't exist, and yet they were invented, what > does "existence" mean to you? > > TVs exist because they were invented. Are you saying that TVs don't exist? Thank you for the correction. I should have used the word 'concocted'. I will try to remember in future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 14:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljn8u$15st$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387314 |
On 7/6/2016 2:27 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 07:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/2016 4:22 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> LTs don't exist. They were invented purely to avoid accepting the >>> obvious after the MMX proved BaTh correct. >> >> When you say that they don't exist, and yet they were invented, what >> does "existence" mean to you? >> >> TVs exist because they were invented. Are you saying that TVs don't >> exist? > > Thank you for the correction. I should have used the word 'concocted'. I > will try to remember in future. > > TVs were concocted, invented, conjured. Does this mean they don't exist? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 07:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljsmg$1ejs$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387322 |
On 07/07/16 05:47, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> When you say that they don't exist, and yet they were invented, what >>> does "existence" mean to you? >>> >>> TVs exist because they were invented. Are you saying that TVs don't >>> exist? >> >> Thank you for the correction. I should have used the word 'concocted'. I >> will try to remember in future. >> >> > > TVs were concocted, invented, conjured. Does this mean they don't exist? You can find the meanings online if you want to know the difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 15:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtu9d0F1b98U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387110 |
On 3/07/2016 11:20 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> In the context of the correct scenario, the question is whether the > >> >> If T1E and T2E are the emission times for Clocks 1 and 2, and if T1R >> and T2R are the reception times, we have (T2R - T1E) = (T1R - T2E) = >> L/c. Now, using lower case t to denote the times on clocks moving >> with and synchronized with the moving observer's frame, the original >> poster's mistake is that he thinks the fixed proportionality of clock >> rates between the two frames implies that (t2R - t1E) must equal (t1R >> - t2E), but this is fallacious reasoning, as explained in the >> previous post. There, for simplicity, I assumed that the pulses were >> emitted simultaneously in the rod's frame, but this wasn't actually >> stated in the original post, so in general all we can say is that >> (T1R-T1E)/(T2R-T2E) equals (t1R-t1E)/(t2R-t2E). >> >> The point is that the fixed proportionality of clock rates in the two >> frames does not imply that the travel times of the two pulses are in >> the same proportion in both frames, it merely implies that the >> individual clock intervals are in the same proportion. > > No that is wrong... > > I don't think you understand the scenario yet. No measurements or events > need to be considered. It's a question of logic. > > According to Einstein's P2, the signals move at c in the frame of the > moving observer and since the rod is moving in that frame, the transit > times are different....NO NEED TO MEASURE THEM. > That is just another way of saying that the moving observer's clock will > advance by DIFFERENT numbers during the opposite transits IRRESPECTIVE > OF WHETHER OR NOT HE DIRECTLY DETECTS THE EVENTS YOU DEFINED. > > However, the moving observer KNOWS that the rod clocks advance buy the > SAME amounts during the transits....so why the hell should he ever > believe a theory that says his own clock will advance by DIFFERENT > amounts when its rate has a fixed ratio with that of the rod clocks? > > The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'. > As I thought, you're assuming that the amount that the clocks advance by is the transit time of the pulse in the frame of the moving observer. You can't just assume that, you need to prove it. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 23:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlb3u4$ipu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387102 |
On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > The point is that the fixed proportionality of clock rates in the two > frames does not imply that the travel times of the two pulses are in > the same proportion in both frames, it merely implies that the > individual clock intervals are in the same proportion. Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a2c508a-b304-4076-872a-eca87164c7be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387111 |
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:28:39 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > According to Einstein's P2, the signals move > at c in the frame of the moving observer and > since the rod is moving in that frame, the > transit times are different....NO NEED TO > MEASURE THEM. Yes, we agree on this. > However, the moving observer KNOWS that the > rod clocks advance buy the SAME amounts during > the transits [because] its rate has a fixed > ratio with that of the rod clocks. We also agree that the clocks (plural) co-moving with the observer all have rates with a fixed ratio to the rates of the rod clocks. Logically, this implies that the ratio of any two clock intervals in the rod frame must be the same as the ratio of the corresponding time intervals in the moving frame. At this point you say to yourself "Aha! This means that if the light transit times in the two directions are equal in the rod frame, they must be equal in the moving frame! Ergo special relativity is logically inconsistent!" Well, not so fast. The problem with your reasoning is that the light transit times you are referring to are not actually clock intervals (you haven't attached clocks to the light pulses), they are differences between the readings of two different clocks at different locations. Those differences depend not just on the clock rates, but also on the clock synchronization. For example, in the rod frame, the transit time is the difference between the reading of Clock 1 at the time of emission and the reading of Clock 2 at the time of reception. This difference obviously depends not just on the rates of the clocks, but also on how they are synchronized at different locations. This is why the fixed ratio of clock rates in the two frames does not imply that the differences between the readings of different clocks at separate locations have the same ratio in different frames. Now, you could validly claim that every observer in every frame must conclude that the proper time for the transits of light in the two directions have the same value. Indeed, they must all conclude that the proper transit times are zero. We can't actually attach mechanical clocks to light pulses, but we could repeat your experiment with tiny clocks propelled at high speeds, and we would find that as they approach the speed of light, the elapsed times would approach zero. But this isn't what you are doing. You are not dealing with proper time intervals, you are dealing with coordinate time differences, by comparing different clocks at separate locations, with different synchronizations. > Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. That statement is too ambiguous to have any definite meaning, but by most reasonable interpretations it is false, even in pre-relativistic physics. For example, two particles moving in opposite directions may have the same magnitudes of momentum in one frame, but not the same magnitudes of momentum in another frame. Some kinds of "sameness" are frame dependent, and some are not. Proper time intervals (elapsed times on an individual clock) are not frame dependent, but coordinate time intervals (differences in the readings of separate synchronized clocks) are frame dependent, because synchronization is frame dependent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 08:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlc4g8$4sm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387113 |
On 04/07/16 00:50, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:28:39 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> According to Einstein's P2, the signals move at c in the frame of >> the moving observer and since the rod is moving in that frame, the >> transit times are different....NO NEED TO MEASURE THEM. > > Yes, we agree on this. > >> However, the moving observer KNOWS that the rod clocks advance buy >> the SAME amounts during the transits [because] its rate has a fixed >> ratio with that of the rod clocks. > > We also agree that the clocks (plural) co-moving with the observer > all have rates with a fixed ratio to the rates of the rod clocks. > Logically, this implies that the ratio of any two clock intervals in > the rod frame must be the same as the ratio of the corresponding > time intervals in the moving frame. Well I'm glad that someone here can at least understand the question. > At this point you say to yourself "Aha! This means that if the light > transit times in the two directions are equal in the rod frame, they > must be equal in the moving frame! Ergo special relativity is > logically inconsistent!" Correct. > Well, not so fast. The problem with your reasoning is that the > light transit times you are referring to are not actually clock > intervals (you haven't attached clocks to the light pulses), they > are differences between the readings of two different clocks at > different locations. Those differences depend not just on the clock > rates, but also on the clock synchronization. The rod clocks are ABSOLUTELY synchronized whilst together, moved into place and then checked with the same light signals. There is no reason why they should not still be in correct synch, ie., they will measure OWLS in both directions to be c.) > For example, in the rod frame, the transit time is the difference > between the reading of Clock 1 at the time of emission and the > reading of Clock 2 at the time of reception. This difference > obviously depends not just on the rates of the clocks, but also on > how they are synchronized at different locations. They are in absolute synch. They will always measure OW speed of light from the rod sources to be c and that from a relatively moving source to be c+v. If the rod experiences a speed change, they will remain in perfect absolute synch...no experiment has ever shown that they wont. This is why the > fixed ratio of clock rates in the two frames does not imply that the > differences between the readings of different clocks at separate > locations have the same ratio in different frames. That does not follow at all. You were making sense up till now but your indoctrination seems to have taken over. > Now, you could validly claim that every observer in every frame must > conclude that the proper time for the transits of light in the two > directions have the same value. Indeed, they must all conclude that > the proper transit times are zero. We can't actually attach > mechanical clocks to light pulses, but we could repeat your > experiment with tiny clocks propelled at high speeds, and we would > find that as they approach the speed of light, the elapsed times > would approach zero. But this isn't what you are doing. You are > not dealing with proper time intervals, you are dealing with > coordinate time differences, by comparing different clocks at > separate locations, with different synchronizations. Let's get down to basics. The way to measure any one-way speed is to divide a known length by a time interval that is determined by subtracting the readings of clocks located at each end of that 'length'. The answer is entirely dependent on the synchronization of those two clocks. You are claiming that the clocks which are correctly synched in their own frame are not correctly synched in any other frame and you are trying to use that principle to refute my proof that the theory on which your claim is based is not valid. You are making the typical dingleberry mistake of employing circular logic. >> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. > > That statement is too ambiguous to have any definite meaning, but by > most reasonable interpretations it is false, even in > pre-relativistic physics. For example, two particles moving in > opposite directions may have the same magnitudes of momentum in one > frame, but not the same magnitudes of momentum in another frame. Momentum and KE are not intrinsic properties of objects. >Some kinds of > "sameness" are frame dependent, and some are not. Proper time > intervals (elapsed times on an individual clock) are not frame > dependent, but coordinate time intervals (differences in the > readings of separate synchronized clocks) are frame dependent, > because synchronization is frame dependent. You are preaching the same Einsteiniana that I have just shown to be logically incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 17:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa0af1ed-c61a-4ba2-8bc2-aaab415b3d42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387141 |
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 3:44:30 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > The rod clocks are ABSOLUTELY synchronized whilst > together, moved into place and then checked with the > same light signals. There is no reason why they should > not still be in correct synch, ie., they will measure OWLS > in both directions to be c.) We agree that the rod clocks, sychronized in the rod frame, will yield the speed of light to be c in both directions. I'll comment on your use of the words "absolutely" and "correct" below. > Let's get down to basics. The way to measure any one-way > speed is to divide a known length by a time interval that is > determined by subtracting the readings of clocks located at > each end of that 'length'. The answer is entirely dependent > on the synchronization of those two clocks. Yes, we agree on this. > You are claiming that the clocks which are correctly > synched in their own frame are not correctly synched in > any other frame... That’s close but not exactly what I’m claiming. If you replace the word “correctly” with “inertially”, then your statement would accurately express what I am claiming. No choice of synchronization is more or less “correct” than any other, but for any given frame there is a unique synchronization in terms of which inertia is isotropic, meaning the same in all directions. If you want a system of space and time coordinates in which the inertial resistance to acceleration of a resting object is the same in all directions, then you need to use inertial synchronization. Since energy has inertia, and energy is frame dependent, it follows that inertia is frame dependent, and therefore inertial synchronization is frame dependent. > ...and you are trying to use that principle to refute my proof > that the theory on which your claim is based is not valid. Not exactly. The refutation of your proof is based on the empirical fact that energy has inertia. If energy did not have inertia, then special relativity would be invalid. But an overwhelming abundance of evidence has shown that energy does indeed have inertia (E=mc^2). This is what was missing in Newtonian mechanics, and it’s easy to understand why it went unnoticed for so long, because the constant of proportionality between energy and inertia is so small (1/c^2). > Momentum and KE are not intrinsic properties of objects. Right, they are frame-dependent properties, and since inertia is a frame dependent property, it follows that synchronization based on inertia must also be frame-dependent. From this empirical fact, special relativity follows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 08:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <415b84ce-8eaf-48eb-8d41-8a7cfdf5744e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387144 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:11:02 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Energy is NOT frame dependent. > > Momentum and KE are not intrinsic properties of objects. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is kinetic energy an intrinsic property of objects, or is it frame dependent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 11:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nle35j$vgr$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387151 |
On 7/4/2016 10:10 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:11:02 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> Energy is NOT frame dependent. >> >> Momentum and KE are not intrinsic properties of objects. > > You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is kinetic energy an intrinsic property of objects, or is it frame dependent? > And did Einstein invent a hoax with relativity and thereby fool not only his contemporaries but everyone since, or did he simply plagiarize other people's accomplishments (which must have been the hoaxes the others accomplished)? You see? It doesn't really matter to him whether the propaganda he spews is self-consistent, as long as it's propaganda. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nle321$vgr$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387151 |
On 7/4/2016 10:10 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:11:02 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> Energy is NOT frame dependent. >> >> Momentum and KE are not intrinsic properties of objects. > > You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is kinetic energy an intrinsic property of objects, or is it frame dependent? > You'll note pretty quickly that Henry has no problem contradicting himself. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlep2g$653$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387151 |
On 05/07/16 01:10, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:11:02 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> Energy is NOT frame dependent. >> >> Momentum and KE are not intrinsic properties of objects. > > You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is kinetic energy an > intrinsic property of objects, or is it frame dependent? This was discussed at length last year. KE is not a property of an object and it is not frame dependent. The reason is well known to real physicists who, purely for convenience, often refer to it as a 'possession' of an object. To create KE an object has to be accelerated, which requires an opposite acceleration of another mass. If you do the quite simple maths that I showed before, you will see that the total KE produced has the same value in all frames. Similarly, when a moving object is stopped by another object, the total KE in all frames does not change (apart from any heat loss). If that was untrue, you could make perpetual motion machine by changing the speed of a compressed spring. Ask Paul Andersen or PD how he created energy in that way... IIRC, they took out a patent on a perpetual motion machine based on frame dependent energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb2b6efc-d727-42e8-b950-40c2d5b1ca88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387205 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > KE is not a property of an object and it is not frame dependent. We must be using the term "kinetic energy" to refer to different things. When most people talk about the "kinetic energy" of a particle in ordinary Newtonian mechanics they are talking about the quantity (1/2)m|v|^2, where m is the mass of the particle and v is the velocity. Since the velocity of a particle is frame dependent, the kinetic energy is frame dependent. Do you agree that the term "kinetic energy of a particle of mass m" (at least in Newtonian mechanics) refers to the quantity (1/2)m|v|^2 where v is the velocity of the particle? And do you agree that the velocity of a particle is frame dependent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 07:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlh8om$1nhm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387211 |
On 05/07/16 09:43, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> KE is not a property of an object and it is not frame dependent. > > We must be using the term "kinetic energy" to refer to different > things. When most people talk about the "kinetic energy" of a > particle in ordinary Newtonian mechanics they are talking about the > quantity (1/2)m|v|^2, where m is the mass of the particle and v is > the velocity. Since the velocity of a particle is frame dependent, > the kinetic energy is frame dependent. > > Do you agree that the term "kinetic energy of a particle of mass m" > (at least in Newtonian mechanics) refers to the quantity (1/2)m|v|^2 > where v is the velocity of the particle? And do you agree that the > velocity of a particle is frame dependent? I have explained this before. When an object which is moving comes to rest (assume no heat loss), the change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. You can work that out by considering the increase in momentum and KE of the object that stops it. Like I said, if that was not correct, you could invent a perpetual motion machine, just like Paul Andersen and PD did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 16:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlh9br$1oh3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387243 |
On 7/5/2016 4:28 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 05/07/16 09:43, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> KE is not a property of an object and it is not frame dependent. >> >> We must be using the term "kinetic energy" to refer to different >> things. When most people talk about the "kinetic energy" of a >> particle in ordinary Newtonian mechanics they are talking about the >> quantity (1/2)m|v|^2, where m is the mass of the particle and v is >> the velocity. Since the velocity of a particle is frame dependent, >> the kinetic energy is frame dependent. >> >> Do you agree that the term "kinetic energy of a particle of mass m" >> (at least in Newtonian mechanics) refers to the quantity (1/2)m|v|^2 >> where v is the velocity of the particle? And do you agree that the >> velocity of a particle is frame dependent? > > I have explained this before. > > When an object which is moving comes to rest (assume no heat loss), the > change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. Don't be silly. In one frame, a car has a speed of 30 m/s and a mass of 1400 kg. It has a KE of 630 kJ. When it comes to rest, it will have a speed of 0 m/s in this frame and will have a change of KE of -630 kJ. In another frame, the very same car has a speed of 10 m/s and a mass of 1400 kg. It has a KE of 70 kJ. If it comes to rest in this frame, it will have a speed of 0 m/s in this frame and will have a change of KE of -70 kJ. See? Different changes in kinetic energy. Oh, I see. You meant "comes to rest" in some PARTICULAR frame. Which frame did have in mind and why? > > You can work that out by considering the increase in momentum and KE of > the object that stops it. > > Like I said, if that was not correct, you could invent a perpetual > motion machine, just like Paul Andersen and PD did. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5dc9187-6515-42b9-9927-9cf9821bde6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387248 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:38:07 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/5/2016 4:28 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > When an object which is moving comes to rest (assume no heat loss), the > > change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. > > Don't be silly. > In one frame, a car has a speed of 30 m/s and a mass of 1400 kg. It has > a KE of 630 kJ. When it comes to rest, it will have a speed of 0 m/s in > this frame and will have a change of KE of -630 kJ. > In another frame, the very same car has a speed of 10 m/s and a mass of > 1400 kg. It has a KE of 70 kJ. If it comes to rest in this frame, it > will have a speed of 0 m/s in this frame and will have a change of KE of > -70 kJ. > See? Different changes in kinetic energy. > > Oh, I see. You meant "comes to rest" in some PARTICULAR frame. Which > frame did have in mind and why? Hey, Odd, there's no point in dealing with this stupider-than-dirt moron. The blithering fool even believes that the MMX confirmed his moronic BaThWater, which has been refuted over and over again, yet he Pentchos on with his dishonest buffoonery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlhak0$1q19$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387252 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> Oh, I see. You meant "comes to rest" in some PARTICULAR frame. Which >> frame did have in mind and why? > > Hey, Odd, there's no point in dealing with this stupider-than-dirt > moron. > The blithering fool even believes that the MMX confirmed his moronic > BaThWater, which has been refuted over and over again, yet he Pentchos > on with his dishonest buffoonery. A single particular experiment cannot possibly be refute a theory proved consistent by other numerous experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 17:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlhdn0$1u3a$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387252 |
On 7/5/2016 4:56 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:38:07 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 7/5/2016 4:28 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> When an object which is moving comes to rest (assume no heat loss), the >>> change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. >> >> Don't be silly. >> In one frame, a car has a speed of 30 m/s and a mass of 1400 kg. It has >> a KE of 630 kJ. When it comes to rest, it will have a speed of 0 m/s in >> this frame and will have a change of KE of -630 kJ. >> In another frame, the very same car has a speed of 10 m/s and a mass of >> 1400 kg. It has a KE of 70 kJ. If it comes to rest in this frame, it >> will have a speed of 0 m/s in this frame and will have a change of KE of >> -70 kJ. >> See? Different changes in kinetic energy. >> >> Oh, I see. You meant "comes to rest" in some PARTICULAR frame. Which >> frame did have in mind and why? > > Hey, Odd, there's no point in dealing with this stupider-than-dirt moron. > The blithering fool even believes that the MMX confirmed his moronic > BaThWater, which has been refuted over and over again, yet he Pentchos on > with his dishonest buffoonery. > Well, I largely agree with you he's a waste of time. He's just saying stuff off the top of his head, without giving any thought or care to whether he said the opposite yesterday. All he's doing is poking. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljn3f$15pr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387248 |
On 06/07/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/2016 4:28 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 05/07/16 09:43, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >>> Do you agree that the term "kinetic energy of a particle of mass m" >>> (at least in Newtonian mechanics) refers to the quantity (1/2)m|v|^2 >>> where v is the velocity of the particle? And do you agree that the >>> velocity of a particle is frame dependent? >> >> I have explained this before. >> >> When an object which is moving comes to rest (assume no heat loss), the >> change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. > > Don't be silly. > In one frame, a car has a speed of 30 m/s and a mass of 1400 kg. It has > a KE of 630 kJ. When it comes to rest, it will have a speed of 0 m/s in > this frame and will have a change of KE of -630 kJ. > In another frame, the very same car has a speed of 10 m/s and a mass of > 1400 kg. It has a KE of 70 kJ. If it comes to rest in this frame, it > will have a speed of 0 m/s in this frame and will have a change of KE of > -70 kJ. > See? Different changes in kinetic energy. Draper, you are an idiot. Just accept the fact and shut up. When you put your foot on the brake, The whole Earth accelerates. Your car's loss of 'KE' plus the Earth's gain, is the same in all observer frames. I published the quite simple maths last year and since I did not keep a record, will let you do it now for homework. > Oh, I see. You meant "comes to rest" in some PARTICULAR frame. Which > frame did have in mind and why? No I did not mean that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web