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 7 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 19 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 07:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl1d7i$1l7h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386922 |
On 30/06/16 06:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 3:05 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to >>>> the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT >>>> take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about >>>> it. >>> >>> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light >>> moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. >> >> Bodkin, the rod is not 'moving'. > > What is the distinction between moving and 'moving'? Evasive booblish > ninny-mumkins games are not really fun for me. The convention use of the word 'moving' is understood to automatically include the associated term 'relative to (something)'. By writing ' 'moving' ' I was drawing attention to your apparently misguided interpretation that the word has some kind of absolute connotation. >> It is just a rod in space. > > Moving or not moving? It makes a difference. Again, in true relativity, nothing can be described simply as 'moving or not moving'.... Try to rid your mind of an absolute aether, Bodkin. > If we were discussing whether cats have a heartbeat, it would depend on > whether the cat was alive or not alive. If you had responded that the > cat is not 'alive' and is just a cat in space, then you would be > engaging in more nincompoopery. It is apparent that I am currently being bombarded with a great deal of it. >>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest >>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in >>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. >> >> If a relatively moving observer somehow deduces that the signals take >> different times to transit the rod, he should reeducate himself from >> kindergarten up. > > Why? It's obvious that a signal from the back of a moving object in the > same direction as the object is moving will take longer to get to the > front. Now that really is a magnificent example of nincompoopery, pure and unadulterated. Bodkin, the light sources are connected to the rod. It is not 'moving' and nor is it accelerating... so what the hell were you talking about when you said 'from the back of the rod'? >Try running along a depot platform from the back of a train to > the front while it is moving. Does it take longer than if the train were > standing still at the station? Remember, this is a kindergarten question. Bodkin, have you ever managed to achieve an above average mark in an IQ test? In the question, the runner is inside the train, not on the platform. >> >>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... >> >> No answer from Bodkin...that's because he has none. The bullets are fired inside the train too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 16:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1ea3$1mt5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386930 |
On 6/29/2016 4:05 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/06/16 06:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 3:05 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to >>>>> the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT >>>>> take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about >>>>> it. >>>> >>>> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light >>>> moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. >>> >>> Bodkin, the rod is not 'moving'. >> >> What is the distinction between moving and 'moving'? Evasive booblish >> ninny-mumkins games are not really fun for me. > > The convention use of the word 'moving' is understood to automatically > include the associated term 'relative to (something)'. By writing ' > 'moving' ' I was drawing attention to your apparently misguided > interpretation that the word has some kind of absolute connotation. I meant no such connotation and I have no idea why you would infer it. Can you read? > >>> It is just a rod in space. >> >> Moving or not moving? It makes a difference. > > Again, in true relativity, nothing can be described simply as 'moving or > not moving'.... I'm not trying to describe anything as absolutely moving or not moving. If you're trying to measure something, you can certainly distinguish whether the thing you're measuring is moving relative to you or not. You've said so below when you stated it was foolish to try to measure a moving object with any accuracy. What did YOU mean when you used the word "moving" there, Henry? LOL. > Try to rid your mind of an absolute aether, Bodkin. > >> If we were discussing whether cats have a heartbeat, it would depend on >> whether the cat was alive or not alive. If you had responded that the >> cat is not 'alive' and is just a cat in space, then you would be >> engaging in more nincompoopery. > > It is apparent that I am currently being bombarded with a great deal of it. > >>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest >>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in >>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. >>> >>> If a relatively moving observer somehow deduces that the signals take >>> different times to transit the rod, he should reeducate himself from >>> kindergarten up. >> >> Why? It's obvious that a signal from the back of a moving object in the >> same direction as the object is moving will take longer to get to the >> front. > > Now that really is a magnificent example of nincompoopery, pure and > unadulterated. > > Bodkin, the light sources are connected to the rod. > It is not 'moving' You just stated that no object can be said to be absolutely not 'moving'. Now you claim the rod is not 'moving'. What on earth do you mean? > and nor is it accelerating... so what the hell were you talking about > when you said 'from the back of the rod'? > >> Try running along a depot platform from the back of a train to >> the front while it is moving. Does it take longer than if the train were >> standing still at the station? Remember, this is a kindergarten question. > > Bodkin, have you ever managed to achieve an above average mark in an IQ > test? > In the question, the runner is inside the train, not on the platform. In WHAT question? In my question? No. In your question about rods and light sources? What train? In your question, is the light running inside the rod? > >>> >>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... >>> >>> No answer from Bodkin...that's because he has none. > > The bullets are fired inside the train too. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 08:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl1gv7$1qom$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386933 |
On 30/06/16 07:24, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 4:05 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the >>>>> light moving in the same direction as the target end to get >>>>> there. Duh. >>>> >>>> Bodkin, the rod is not 'moving'. >>> >>> What is the distinction between moving and 'moving'? Evasive >>> booblish ninny-mumkins games are not really fun for me. >> >> The convention use of the word 'moving' is understood to >> automatically include the associated term 'relative to >> (something)'. By writing ' 'moving' ' I was drawing attention to >> your apparently misguided interpretation that the word has some >> kind of absolute connotation. > > I meant no such connotation and I have no idea why you would infer > it. Can you read? I deduced your error and corrected it after reading your ill-conceived statement. >>> It is just a rod in space. >>> >>> Moving or not moving? It makes a difference. >> >> Again, in true relativity, nothing can be described simply as >> 'moving or not moving'.... > > I'm not trying to describe anything as absolutely moving or not > moving. If you're trying to measure something, you can certainly > distinguish whether the thing you're measuring is moving relative to > you or not. Ah!, now you have correctly included the word 'relatively'. > You've said so below when you stated it was foolish to try to measure > a moving object with any accuracy. What did YOU mean when you used > the word "moving" there, Henry? The movement was obviously relative to the 'real idiot'. In your statement, there was no implied reference. > LOL. > >> Try to rid your mind of an absolute aether, Bodkin. >> >>> If we were discussing whether cats have a heartbeat, it would >>> depend on whether the cat was alive or not alive. If you had >>> responded that the cat is not 'alive' and is just a cat in space, >>> then you would be engaging in more nincompoopery. >> >> It is apparent that I am currently being bombarded with a great >> deal of it. >> >>>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in >>>>> the rest frame, then this symmetry should persist in any >>>>> other frame, when in fact the symmetry is obvious broken in >>>>> any other frame. Duh. >>>> >>>> If a relatively moving observer somehow deduces that the >>>> signals take different times to transit the rod, he should >>>> reeducate himself from kindergarten up. >>> >>> Why? It's obvious that a signal from the back of a moving object >>> in the same direction as the object is moving will take longer to >>> get to the front. >> >> Now that really is a magnificent example of nincompoopery, pure >> and unadulterated. >> >> Bodkin, the light sources are connected to the rod. It is not >> 'moving' > > You just stated that no object can be said to be absolutely not > 'moving'. Now you claim the rod is not 'moving'. What on earth do you > mean? This seems to be far too hard for you, Bodkin. Maybe some of your sawdust has infiltrated your cranium. Your statement was "It's obvious that a signal from the back of a moving object in the same direction as the object is moving will take longer to get to the front". Can you not see how silly it is? You even gave its imagined movement an imagined direction... :) >> and nor is it accelerating... so what the hell were you talking >> about when you said 'from the back of the rod'? >> >>> Try running along a depot platform from the back of a train to >>> the front while it is moving. Does it take longer than if the >>> train were standing still at the station? Remember, this is a >>> kindergarten question. >> >> Bodkin, have you ever managed to achieve an above average mark in >> an IQ test? In the question, the runner is inside the train, not on >> the platform. > > In WHAT question? In my question? No. In your question about rods and > light sources? What train? In your question, is the light running > inside the rod? Don't try to wriggle out. Your question and your train of course. >> >>>> >>>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light >>>>>> signals.... >>>> >>>> No answer from Bodkin...that's because he has none. >> >> The bullets are fired inside the train too. ....Still no answer from the obviously terribly confused Bodkin. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 17:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1i0v$1s28$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386939 |
On 6/29/2016 5:09 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/06/16 07:24, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 4:05 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>>> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the >>>>>> light moving in the same direction as the target end to get >>>>>> there. Duh. >>>>> >>>>> Bodkin, the rod is not 'moving'. >>>> >>>> What is the distinction between moving and 'moving'? Evasive >>>> booblish ninny-mumkins games are not really fun for me. >>> >>> The convention use of the word 'moving' is understood to >>> automatically include the associated term 'relative to >>> (something)'. By writing ' 'moving' ' I was drawing attention to >>> your apparently misguided interpretation that the word has some >>> kind of absolute connotation. >> >> I meant no such connotation and I have no idea why you would infer >> it. Can you read? > > I deduced your error and corrected it after reading your ill-conceived > statement. You mean you miscontrued, and then acted on your own misconstrual. > >>>> It is just a rod in space. >>>> >>>> Moving or not moving? It makes a difference. >>> >>> Again, in true relativity, nothing can be described simply as >>> 'moving or not moving'.... >> >> I'm not trying to describe anything as absolutely moving or not >> moving. If you're trying to measure something, you can certainly >> distinguish whether the thing you're measuring is moving relative to >> you or not. > > Ah!, now you have correctly included the word 'relatively'. Funny, you didn't. See below. > >> You've said so below when you stated it was foolish to try to measure >> a moving object with any accuracy. What did YOU mean when you used >> the word "moving" there, Henry? > > The movement was obviously relative to the 'real idiot'. In your > statement, there was no implied reference. Oh dear, so we have in one case you saying that your use of "moving object" implies "relatively" and my use of "moving object" does not imply "relatively". LOL. > >> LOL. >> >>> Try to rid your mind of an absolute aether, Bodkin. >>> >>>> If we were discussing whether cats have a heartbeat, it would >>>> depend on whether the cat was alive or not alive. If you had >>>> responded that the cat is not 'alive' and is just a cat in space, >>>> then you would be engaging in more nincompoopery. >>> >>> It is apparent that I am currently being bombarded with a great >>> deal of it. >>> >>>>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in >>>>>> the rest frame, then this symmetry should persist in any >>>>>> other frame, when in fact the symmetry is obvious broken in >>>>>> any other frame. Duh. >>>>> >>>>> If a relatively moving observer somehow deduces that the >>>>> signals take different times to transit the rod, he should >>>>> reeducate himself from kindergarten up. >>>> >>>> Why? It's obvious that a signal from the back of a moving object >>>> in the same direction as the object is moving will take longer to >>>> get to the front. >>> >>> Now that really is a magnificent example of nincompoopery, pure >>> and unadulterated. >>> >>> Bodkin, the light sources are connected to the rod. It is not >>> 'moving' >> >> You just stated that no object can be said to be absolutely not >> 'moving'. Now you claim the rod is not 'moving'. What on earth do you >> mean? > > This seems to be far too hard for you, Bodkin. Maybe some of your > sawdust has infiltrated your cranium. Your statement was "It's obvious > that a signal from the back of a moving object in the same direction as > the object is moving will take longer to get to the front". Yes. Can you parse it? > Can you not see how silly it is? You even gave its imagined movement an > imagined direction... :) Of course. Are you going to claim that the object is not moving for all observers? > >>> and nor is it accelerating... so what the hell were you talking >>> about when you said 'from the back of the rod'? >>> >>>> Try running along a depot platform from the back of a train to >>>> the front while it is moving. Does it take longer than if the >>>> train were standing still at the station? Remember, this is a >>>> kindergarten question. >>> >>> Bodkin, have you ever managed to achieve an above average mark in >>> an IQ test? In the question, the runner is inside the train, not on >>> the platform. >> >> In WHAT question? In my question? No. In your question about rods and >> light sources? What train? In your question, is the light running >> inside the rod? > > Don't try to wriggle out. Your question and your train of course. Then of course, the runner on the depot platform is unlikely to be inside the train, wouldn't you say? Or are you construing my explicit reference to the runner being on the platform to actually mean a runner inside the train? > >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light >>>>>>> signals.... >>>>> >>>>> No answer from Bodkin...that's because he has none. >>> >>> The bullets are fired inside the train too. > > ....Still no answer from the obviously terribly confused Bodkin. >>> >> >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 20:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl2t8r$1fjc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386940 |
On 30/06/16 08:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 5:09 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> The convention use of the word 'moving' is understood to >>>> automatically include the associated term 'relative to >>>> (something)'. By writing ' 'moving' ' I was drawing attention >>>> to your apparently misguided interpretation that the word has >>>> some > You mean you miscontrued, and then acted on your own misconstrual. > >> >>>>> It is just a rod in space. >>>>> >>>>> Moving or not moving? It makes a difference. >>>> >>>> Again, in true relativity, nothing can be described simply as >>>> 'moving or not moving'.... >>> >>> I'm not trying to describe anything as absolutely moving or not >>> moving. If you're trying to measure something, you can certainly >>> distinguish whether the thing you're measuring is moving relative >>> to you or not. >> >> Ah!, now you have correctly included the word 'relatively'. > > Funny, you didn't. See below. > >> >>> You've said so below when you stated it was foolish to try to >>> measure a moving object with any accuracy. What did YOU mean when >>> you used the word "moving" there, Henry? >> >> The movement was obviously relative to the 'real idiot'. In your >> statement, there was no implied reference. > > Oh dear, so we have in one case you saying that your use of "moving > object" implies "relatively" and my use of "moving object" does not > imply "relatively". LOL. Bodkin, you are making a fool of yourself. You don't seem to understand the basics and you seem to think you can use the word 'moving' without any kind of reference, whether stated or implied. >> > >> This seems to be far too hard for you, Bodkin. Maybe some of your >> sawdust has infiltrated your cranium. Your statement was "It's >> obvious that a signal from the back of a moving object in the same >> direction as the object is moving will take longer to get to the >> front". > > Yes. Can you parse it? I can put in the bin...where it belongs... >> Can you not see how silly it is? You even gave its imagined >> movement an imagined direction... :) > > Of course. Are you going to claim that the object is not moving for > all observers? No poor fellow, Bodkin. my original post was all about an observer who is moving relative to the rod and in whose frame the rod is moving. >>>> and nor is it accelerating... so what the hell were you >>>> talking >>>>> Try running along a depot platform from the back of a train >>>>> to the front while it is moving. Does it take longer than if >>>>> the train were standing still at the station? Remember, this >>>>> is a kindergarten question. >>>> >>>> Bodkin, have you ever managed to achieve an above average mark >>>> in an IQ test? In the question, the runner is inside the train, >>>> not on the platform. >>> >>> In WHAT question? In my question? No. In your question about rods >>> and light sources? What train? In your question, is the light >>> running inside the rod? >> >> Don't try to wriggle out. Your question and your train of course. > > Then of course, the runner on the depot platform is unlikely to be > inside the train, wouldn't you say? Bodkin, you poor miserable fellow. The light sources are attached to the ends of the rod. The signals don't go anywhere except along the rod. They are equivalent to a runner who runs backwards and forwards inside the train's corridor. > Or are you construing my explicit > reference to the runner being on the platform to actually mean a > runner inside the train? There is no 'runner on the platform'. He is always within the train. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 08:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl365u$8in$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386961 |
On 6/30/2016 5:45 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/06/16 08:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 5:09 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> The convention use of the word 'moving' is understood to >>>>> automatically include the associated term 'relative to >>>>> (something)'. By writing ' 'moving' ' I was drawing attention >>>>> to your apparently misguided interpretation that the word has >>>>> some > >> You mean you miscontrued, and then acted on your own misconstrual. >> >>> >>>>>> It is just a rod in space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moving or not moving? It makes a difference. >>>>> >>>>> Again, in true relativity, nothing can be described simply as >>>>> 'moving or not moving'.... >>>> >>>> I'm not trying to describe anything as absolutely moving or not >>>> moving. If you're trying to measure something, you can certainly >>>> distinguish whether the thing you're measuring is moving relative >>>> to you or not. >>> >>> Ah!, now you have correctly included the word 'relatively'. >> >> Funny, you didn't. See below. >> >>> >>>> You've said so below when you stated it was foolish to try to >>>> measure a moving object with any accuracy. What did YOU mean when >>>> you used the word "moving" there, Henry? >>> >>> The movement was obviously relative to the 'real idiot'. In your >>> statement, there was no implied reference. >> >> Oh dear, so we have in one case you saying that your use of "moving >> object" implies "relatively" and my use of "moving object" does not >> imply "relatively". LOL. > > Bodkin, you are making a fool of yourself. You don't seem to understand > the basics and you seem to think you can use the word 'moving' without > any kind of reference, whether stated or implied. > >>> >> >>> This seems to be far too hard for you, Bodkin. Maybe some of your >>> sawdust has infiltrated your cranium. Your statement was "It's >>> obvious that a signal from the back of a moving object in the same >>> direction as the object is moving will take longer to get to the >>> front". >> >> Yes. Can you parse it? > > I can put in the bin...where it belongs... > >>> Can you not see how silly it is? You even gave its imagined >>> movement an imagined direction... :) >> >> Of course. Are you going to claim that the object is not moving for >> all observers? > > No poor fellow, Bodkin. my original post was all about an observer who > is moving relative to the rod and in whose frame the rod is moving. And then you stated that the rod was not 'moving'. See it above? Henry, if you're going to talk in circles to try to get me to follow you around the circle, please know that I'm just going to stand here and watch you go around and around. > >>>>> and nor is it accelerating... so what the hell were you >>>>> talking > >>>>>> Try running along a depot platform from the back of a train >>>>>> to the front while it is moving. Does it take longer than if >>>>>> the train were standing still at the station? Remember, this >>>>>> is a kindergarten question. >>>>> >>>>> Bodkin, have you ever managed to achieve an above average mark >>>>> in an IQ test? In the question, the runner is inside the train, >>>>> not on the platform. >>>> >>>> In WHAT question? In my question? No. In your question about rods >>>> and light sources? What train? In your question, is the light >>>> running inside the rod? >>> >>> Don't try to wriggle out. Your question and your train of course. >> >> Then of course, the runner on the depot platform is unlikely to be >> inside the train, wouldn't you say? > > Bodkin, you poor miserable fellow. The light sources are attached to the > ends of the rod. Sure. > The signals don't go anywhere except along the rod. Outside the rod or inside the rod? > They are equivalent to a runner who runs backwards and forwards inside > the train's corridor. How so? > >> Or are you construing my explicit >> reference to the runner being on the platform to actually mean a >> runner inside the train? > > There is no 'runner on the platform'. He is always within the train. That may be what YOU saw in what I wrote, but it isn't what I wrote. If you'd like to simply NOT read what I wrote and rewrite it to suit yourself, then simply hold the argument with yourself, ok? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 13:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl4prm$1k9s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386973 |
On 30/06/16 23:17, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/30/2016 5:45 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> This seems to be far too hard for you, Bodkin. Maybe some of your >>>> sawdust has infiltrated your cranium. Your statement was "It's >>>> obvious that a signal from the back of a moving object in the same >>>> direction as the object is moving will take longer to get to the >>>> front". >>> >>> Yes. Can you parse it? >> >> I can put in the bin...where it belongs... >> >>>> Can you not see how silly it is? You even gave its imagined >>>> movement an imagined direction... :) >>> >>> Of course. Are you going to claim that the object is not moving for >>> all observers? >> >> No poor fellow, Bodkin. my original post was all about an observer who >> is moving relative to the rod and in whose frame the rod is moving. > > And then you stated that the rod was not 'moving'. See it above? > > Henry, if you're going to talk in circles to try to get me to follow you > around the circle, please know that I'm just going to stand here and > watch you go around and around. Do you suffer from dementia? The observer is moving relative to hte rod and therefore the rod is moving relative to the observer's. >>>> Don't try to wriggle out. Your question and your train of course. >>> >>> Then of course, the runner on the depot platform is unlikely to be >>> inside the train, wouldn't you say? >> >> Bodkin, you poor miserable fellow. The light sources are attached to the >> ends of the rod. > > Sure. > >> The signals don't go anywhere except along the rod. > > Outside the rod or inside the rod? > >> They are equivalent to a runner who runs backwards and forwards inside >> the train's corridor. > > How so? Because they never go past the ends and they both obviously move at hte same speed relative to the rod, in opposite directions.. >>> Or are you construing my explicit >>> reference to the runner being on the platform to actually mean a >>> runner inside the train? >> >> There is no 'runner on the platform'. He is always within the train. > > That may be what YOU saw in what I wrote, but it isn't what I wrote. If > you'd like to simply NOT read what I wrote and rewrite it to suit > yourself, then simply hold the argument with yourself, ok? Bodkin, I'm starting to feel embarrassed wasting so much time trying to educate you. It is so easy to make a fool of you, it gives me a kind of sadistic pleasure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 05:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0351b5d2-90fe-42b2-9e6f-e140cd8ac0e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386887 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:25:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 29/06/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There > >>> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals > >>> should take different times to transit the rod. > >> > >> I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins > >> who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for > >> credibility. > > > > Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to > > the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT > > take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about it. > > Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light > moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. This violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. Using the LT an observer moving wrt the rod must predict that the signal take the same time in both directions. Duh. > > You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest > frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in > fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. > > > > > You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 08:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl36dl$8in$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386966 |
On 6/30/2016 7:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:25:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 29/06/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There >>>>> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals >>>>> should take different times to transit the rod. >>>> >>>> I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins >>>> who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for >>>> credibility. >>> >>> Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to >>> the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT >>> take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about it. >> >> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light >> moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. > > This violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. No it doesn't. The speed of light is still isotropic. > Using the LT an observer moving wrt the rod must predict that the signal > take the same time in both directions. Duh. The LT shows no such thing, and I defy you to try to show with the LT that it does. >> >> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest >> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in >> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. >> >>> >>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 06:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0df4a78-c293-43c4-97cc-497793fadfe5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386976 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:21:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/30/2016 7:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:25:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> On 29/06/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There > >>>>> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals > >>>>> should take different times to transit the rod. > >>>> > >>>> I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins > >>>> who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for > >>>> credibility. > >>> > >>> Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to > >>> the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT > >>> take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about it. > >> > >> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light > >> moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. > > > > This violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. > > No it doesn't. The speed of light is still isotropic. The speed of light cannot be isotropic in the rod frame if the outside observer claims that it takes light a different time to traverse the length of the rod in the opposite directions. > > Using the LT an observer moving wrt the rod must predict that the signal > > take the same time in both directions. Duh. > > The LT shows no such thing, and I defy you to try to show with the LT > that it does. The LT predicts: Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. > > >> > >> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest > >> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in > >> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. > >> > >>> > >>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 09:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl39ja$ehm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386978 |
On 6/30/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:21:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/30/2016 7:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:25:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> On 29/06/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>>>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There >>>>>>> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals >>>>>>> should take different times to transit the rod. >>>>>> >>>>>> I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins >>>>>> who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for >>>>>> credibility. >>>>> >>>>> Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to >>>>> the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT >>>>> take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about it. >>>> >>>> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light >>>> moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. >>> >>> This violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. >> >> No it doesn't. The speed of light is still isotropic. > > The speed of light cannot be isotropic in the rod frame if the outside observer > claims that it takes light a different time to traverse the length of the rod in > the opposite directions. The outside observer is not at rest in the rod's rest frame. The rod is not at rest in the observer's rest frame. Does this help clarify for you? > >>> Using the LT an observer moving wrt the rod must predict that the signal >>> take the same time in both directions. Duh. >> >> The LT shows no such thing, and I defy you to try to show with the LT >> that it does. > > The LT predicts: > Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. That equation only applies for the time between two events that happen at the same location. The two events are the emission and arrival of the light signal, and in neither of the frames considered here do the events occur in the same place. If you don't know know the conditions under which a relativistic equations apply, then you shouldn't try to use them. > >> >>>> >>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest >>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in >>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b86a637-add8-4fd7-a836-6205471be606@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386979 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/30/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:21:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/30/2016 7:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:25:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> On 29/06/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>>>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There > >>>>>>> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals > >>>>>>> should take different times to transit the rod. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins > >>>>>> who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for > >>>>>> credibility. > >>>>> > >>>>> Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to > >>>>> the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT > >>>>> take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about it. > >>>> > >>>> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light > >>>> moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. > >>> > >>> This violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. > >> > >> No it doesn't. The speed of light is still isotropic. > > > > The speed of light cannot be isotropic in the rod frame if the outside observer > > claims that it takes light a different time to traverse the length of the rod in > > the opposite directions. > > The outside observer is not at rest in the rod's rest frame. The rod is > not at rest in the observer's rest frame. Does this help clarify for you? So? The rod frame has priority to determine transit time. the outside observer must agree what the rod observer measures. > > > > >>> Using the LT an observer moving wrt the rod must predict that the signal > >>> take the same time in both directions. Duh. > >> > >> The LT shows no such thing, and I defy you to try to show with the LT > >> that it does. > > > > The LT predicts: > > Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. > > No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? What equation the outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. > That equation only > applies for the time between two events that happen at the same > location. There is no transit time needed if the events happen at the same location. > The two events are the emission and arrival of the light > signal, and in neither of the frames considered here do the events occur > in the same place. > > If you don't know know the conditions under which a relativistic > equations apply, then you shouldn't try to use them. > > > > >> > >>>> > >>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest > >>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in > >>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 17:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl46k7$u5v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387000 |
On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/30/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:21:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/30/2016 7:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:25:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>>>> On 29/06/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>>>>>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There >>>>>>>>> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals >>>>>>>>> should take different times to transit the rod. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins >>>>>>>> who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for >>>>>>>> credibility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to >>>>>>> the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT >>>>>>> take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light >>>>>> moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. >>>>> >>>>> This violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. >>>> >>>> No it doesn't. The speed of light is still isotropic. >>> >>> The speed of light cannot be isotropic in the rod frame if the outside observer >>> claims that it takes light a different time to traverse the length of the rod in >>> the opposite directions. >> >> The outside observer is not at rest in the rod's rest frame. The rod is >> not at rest in the observer's rest frame. Does this help clarify for you? > > > So? The rod frame has priority to determine transit time. No, Ken. In physics, no frame has any priority to determine the value of any parameter. That would be the point. Geez, where do you get this stuff? > the outside observer must agree what the rod observer measures. > >> >>> >>>>> Using the LT an observer moving wrt the rod must predict that the signal >>>>> take the same time in both directions. Duh. >>>> >>>> The LT shows no such thing, and I defy you to try to show with the LT >>>> that it does. >>> >>> The LT predicts: >>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. >> >> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. > > Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR assertions. > What equation the > outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. These ones: t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. > >> That equation only >> applies for the time between two events that happen at the same >> location. > > There is no transit time needed if the events happen at the same location. That's not true, Ken. Please pay attention. The correct equations are given above. > >> The two events are the emission and arrival of the light >> signal, and in neither of the frames considered here do the events occur >> in the same place. >> >> If you don't know know the conditions under which a relativistic >> equations apply, then you shouldn't try to use them. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest >>>>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in >>>>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4d8c9ae-9c2c-4961-b505-69d7f4132c44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387005 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/30/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:21:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 6/30/2016 7:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:25:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>>>> On 29/06/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There > >>>>>>>>> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals > >>>>>>>>> should take different times to transit the rod. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins > >>>>>>>> who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for > >>>>>>>> credibility. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to > >>>>>>> the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT > >>>>>>> take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure. If the rod is moving, then it will take longer for the light > >>>>>> moving in the same direction as the target end to get there. Duh. > >>>>> > >>>>> This violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. > >>>> > >>>> No it doesn't. The speed of light is still isotropic. > >>> > >>> The speed of light cannot be isotropic in the rod frame if the outside observer > >>> claims that it takes light a different time to traverse the length of the rod in > >>> the opposite directions. > >> > >> The outside observer is not at rest in the rod's rest frame. The rod is > >> not at rest in the observer's rest frame. Does this help clarify for you? > > > > > > So? The rod frame has priority to determine transit time. > > No, Ken. In physics, no frame has any priority to determine the value of > any parameter. That would be the point. Geez, where do you get this stuff? > > > the outside observer must agree what the rod observer measures. > > > >> > >>> > >>>>> Using the LT an observer moving wrt the rod must predict that the signal > >>>>> take the same time in both directions. Duh. > >>>> > >>>> The LT shows no such thing, and I defy you to try to show with the LT > >>>> that it does. > >>> > >>> The LT predicts: > >>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. > >> > >> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. > > > > Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? > > No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR > assertions. > > > What equation the > > outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. > > These ones: > t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) > t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) > You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0....the same equation is used to predict the transit time in both directions. My equation agree with what the rod frame measures that the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > >> That equation only > >> applies for the time between two events that happen at the same > >> location. > > > > There is no transit time needed if the events happen at the same location. > > That's not true, Ken. Please pay attention. > The correct equations are given above. > > > > >> The two events are the emission and arrival of the light > >> signal, and in neither of the frames considered here do the events occur > >> in the same place. > >> > >> If you don't know know the conditions under which a relativistic > >> equations apply, then you shouldn't try to use them. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest > >>>>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in > >>>>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl6daj$b5i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387044 |
On 7/1/2016 11:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> The LT predicts: >>>>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. >>>> >>>> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. >>> >>> Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? >> >> No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR >> assertions. >> >>> What equation the >>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. >> >> These ones: >> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) >> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) >> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. > > These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the > rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: x_emission = 0 x_arrival = L t_emission = 0 t_arrival = L/c Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do that algebra too. For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left end, here are your paramaters: x_emission = L x_arrival = 0 t_emission = 0 t_arrival = L/c Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the algebra. > > My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0. That is not how you use the equations. But maybe you don't know how to plug values into equations and do algebra. >...the same > equation is used to predict the transit time in both directions. My equation agree with what the > rod frame measures that the speed of light is isotropic. > >> >>> >>>> That equation only >>>> applies for the time between two events that happen at the same >>>> location. >>> >>> There is no transit time needed if the events happen at the same location. >> >> That's not true, Ken. Please pay attention. >> The correct equations are given above. >> >>> >>>> The two events are the emission and arrival of the light >>>> signal, and in neither of the frames considered here do the events occur >>>> in the same place. >>>> >>>> If you don't know know the conditions under which a relativistic >>>> equations apply, then you shouldn't try to use them. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest >>>>>>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in >>>>>>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b09632d-04ca-480b-b44a-b572be2cc3fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387050 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/1/2016 11:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>> The LT predicts: > >>>>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. > >>>> > >>>> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. > >>> > >>> Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? > >> > >> No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR > >> assertions. > >> > >>> What equation the > >>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. > >> > >> These ones: > >> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) > >> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) > >> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. > > > > These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the > > rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? > > Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. > In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating > from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: > x_emission = 0 > x_arrival = L > t_emission = 0 > t_arrival = L/c > Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. > Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from > the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do > that algebra too. > > For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left > end, here are your paramaters: > x_emission = L > x_arrival = 0 > t_emission = 0 > t_arrival = L/c > Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the > difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the > algebra. ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 from left to right. That means that you already assumed that the transit time in the opposite directions are different. That means that your argument is based on bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what the rod frame measures. > > > > > My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0. > > That is not how you use the equations. But maybe you don't know how to > plug values into equations and do algebra. That's exactly how you use the Delta form of the LT. It makes no bogus assumption that the direction of light travel will affect the transit time. When Delta(x) equal to zero you are comparing transit time in both direction without bogus assumptions. > > >...the same > > equation is used to predict the transit time in both directions. My equation agree with what the > > rod frame measures that the speed of light is isotropic. > > > >> > >>> > >>>> That equation only > >>>> applies for the time between two events that happen at the same > >>>> location. > >>> > >>> There is no transit time needed if the events happen at the same location. > >> > >> That's not true, Ken. Please pay attention. > >> The correct equations are given above. > >> > >>> > >>>> The two events are the emission and arrival of the light > >>>> signal, and in neither of the frames considered here do the events occur > >>>> in the same place. > >>>> > >>>> If you don't know know the conditions under which a relativistic > >>>> equations apply, then you shouldn't try to use them. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest > >>>>>>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in > >>>>>>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 05:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3874ccc-62c3-428a-890b-f47822a939c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387067 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 5:24:57 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/1/2016 11:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > >>>>> The LT predicts: > > >>>>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. > > >>>> > > >>>> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. > > >>> > > >>> Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? > > >> > > >> No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR > > >> assertions. > > >> > > >>> What equation the > > >>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. > > >> > > >> These ones: > > >> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) > > >> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) > > >> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. > > > > > > These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the > > > rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? > > > > Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. > > In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating > > from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: > > x_emission = 0 > > x_arrival = L > > t_emission = 0 > > t_arrival = L/c > > Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > > t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. > > Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from > > the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do > > that algebra too. > > > > For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left > > end, here are your paramaters: > > x_emission = L > > x_arrival = 0 > > t_emission = 0 > > t_arrival = L/c > > Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > > t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the > > difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the > > algebra. > > ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 from left to right. That means that you already assumed that the transit time in the opposite directions are different. That means that your argument is based on bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what the rod frame measures. No answer? Odd (AKA PD) its time to discard the coordinate system and uses the delta form of the LT to do computation. > > > > > > > > > > My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0. > > > > That is not how you use the equations. But maybe you don't know how to > > plug values into equations and do algebra. > > That's exactly how you use the Delta form of the LT. It makes no bogus assumption that the direction of light travel will affect the transit time. When Delta(x) equal to zero you are comparing transit time in both direction without bogus assumptions. > > > > > > > >...the same > > > equation is used to predict the transit time in both directions. My equation agree with what the > > > rod frame measures that the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>>> That equation only > > >>>> applies for the time between two events that happen at the same > > >>>> location. > > >>> > > >>> There is no transit time needed if the events happen at the same location. > > >> > > >> That's not true, Ken. Please pay attention. > > >> The correct equations are given above. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>> The two events are the emission and arrival of the light > > >>>> signal, and in neither of the frames considered here do the events occur > > >>>> in the same place. > > >>>> > > >>>> If you don't know know the conditions under which a relativistic > > >>>> equations apply, then you shouldn't try to use them. > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest > > >>>>>>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in > > >>>>>>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nle2kv$vgr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387108 |
On 7/3/2016 7:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 5:24:57 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> What equation the >>>>>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. >>>>> >>>>> These ones: >>>>> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) >>>>> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) >>>>> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. >>>> >>>> These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the >>>> rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? >>> >>> Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. >>> In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating >>> from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: >>> x_emission = 0 >>> x_arrival = L >>> t_emission = 0 >>> t_arrival = L/c >>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what >>> t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. >>> Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from >>> the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do >>> that algebra too. >>> >>> For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left >>> end, here are your paramaters: >>> x_emission = L >>> x_arrival = 0 >>> t_emission = 0 >>> t_arrival = L/c >>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what >>> t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the >>> difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the >>> algebra. >> >> ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 >> from left to right. That means that you already assumed that the transit time in >> the opposite directions are different. That means that your argument is based on >> bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what the rod frame measures. > > No answer? Odd (AKA PD) its time to discard the coordinate system and uses the delta > form of the LT to do computation. You are proposing discarding the Lorentz transformations when discussing relativity??? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 10:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dfbac3d-d853-4396-bf2c-63f384aaa245@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387159 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:25:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/3/2016 7:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 5:24:57 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>>>> What equation the > >>>>>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. > >>>>> > >>>>> These ones: > >>>>> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) > >>>>> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) > >>>>> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. > >>>> > >>>> These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the > >>>> rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? > >>> > >>> Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. > >>> In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating > >>> from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: > >>> x_emission = 0 > >>> x_arrival = L > >>> t_emission = 0 > >>> t_arrival = L/c > >>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > >>> t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. > >>> Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from > >>> the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do > >>> that algebra too. > >>> > >>> For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left > >>> end, here are your paramaters: > >>> x_emission = L > >>> x_arrival = 0 > >>> t_emission = 0 > >>> t_arrival = L/c > >>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > >>> t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the > >>> difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the > >>> algebra. > >> > >> ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 > >> from left to right. That means that you already assumed that the transit time in > >> the opposite directions are different. That means that your argument is based on > >> bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what the rod frame measures. > > > > No answer? Odd (AKA PD) its time to discard the coordinate system and uses the delta > > form of the LT to do computation. > > You are proposing discarding the Lorentz transformations when discussing > relativity??? No I am proposing discarding the coordinate system of the LT and use the delta form of the LT. The coordinate system of the LT give results disagree with actual measurements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 13:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nle8dr$19k4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387185 |
On 7/4/2016 12:48 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > You are proposing discarding the Lorentz transformations when discussing >> > relativity??? > No I am proposing discarding the coordinate system of the LT and use the delta form > of the LT. The coordinate system of the LT give results disagree with actual measurements. Ken, the Lorentz transform is a transform between systems of coordinates. To get rid of the coordinate systems is to deny that the Lorentz transforms are coordinate transforms. And no, the Lorentz transforms do not disagree with actual measurements. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web