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 2 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 19 Next page →
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 20:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a81e1ff-2a01-41ea-90ce-8219ea7e6d37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387092 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-7, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 1:41:40 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > So we have a logical impossibility. Einstein CALCULATES > > that the moving observer's clocks should advance by DIFFERENT > > amounts during the actual transits yet THEORY says they must > > advance by the SAME amounts because of their fixed rate > > relationship with the rod's clocks. > > To be clear, let's label the emissions and reception events: > > Event 1: A light pulse is emitted from Clock 1. > Event 2: A light pulse is emitted from Clock 2. > Event 3: The pulse emitted from Clock 1 arrives at Clock 2. > Event 4: The pulse emitted from Clock 2 arrives at Clock 1. > > Letting Tj signify the reading of the rod clock at event j, > we know that T3-T1 equals T4-T2 (i.e., equal travel times > for the light, with synchronized rod clocks). > > Now let tj denote the times on a system of clocks co-moving > with the moving observer, and synchronized according to > moving frame. I think what you are saying is that, since > the clocks in the moving frame all advance at the same fixed > rate in relation to the rod clocks, it must follow that t3-t1 > equals t4-t2. Your premise is correct, but your conclusion > is not, because from the fixed rate relation between rod > clocks and moving clocks all we can conclude is that t4-t1 > equals t3-t2. In other words, the elapsed time between > emission and reception for Clock 1 must equal the elapsed > time between emission and reception for Clock 2, and this > equality holds for both the rod frame and the moving > observer's frame. > > We also know that t2-t1 equals t3-t4, because this is the > amount by which the clocks are out of sync in terms of the > moving observer's clocks, and this doesn't change. By > simple arithmetic it follows that (t3-t1)-(t4-t2) = 2(t2-t1), > so this explains why (t3-t1) does not equal (t4-t2), because > the rod clocks are synchronized differently than the moving > observer's clocks. The description above assumes the observer "O2" is moving to the left relative to the rod. If O2 is moving to the right, swap "Clock 1" and "Clock 2" in the above description.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 18:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <08617e01-dfdb-444d-a8f7-ba9516d27045@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387090 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 2:41:40 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > The trouble is, according to every known theory, every inertial clock in > the universe has a fixed rates with every other clock, no matter how > they are relatively moving. Completely false assertion. Special and general relativity are "known" theories, and so is quantum electrodynamics. These are three of the most SUCCESSFUL theories that refute Ralphie-boy's amazingly stupid claim. And they are successful because they predict what experiments demonstrate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 14:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtrj7dFfe0kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387090 |
On 3/07/2016 6:41 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 02/07/16 12:46, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/07/2016 5:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> >>>> To the relatively moving observers, the clocks on the rod are not >>>> synchronised. >>> >>> Think before you write. >>> You are merely preaching Einstein's flawed RoS. >>> I am showing you why his derivation is wrong. >>> The plain fact is, the light from the sources on the rod cannot be >>> moving at c in the moving observer's frame. If it did, the transit times >>> would be different according to that observer and his clocks would >>> advance by different amounts during those opposite transits. >>> They are known to advance by the SAME amounts because their rates are in >>> fixed ratio with the moving clock rates.. >>> >>> That us probably too hard for you to understand. >>> >>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>> >> >> If you suppose that your moving observer passes the midpoint of the rod >> at the time the two light pulses are emitted, then it's clear that the >> pulses will reach the ends of the rod before the moving observer reaches >> either of them. >> >> So to talk about how long the pulses took to get there in the moving >> observer's frame, you have to suppose that you can attach a meaning to >> the time that elapses between the sending event (where the moving >> observer was), and two other events that are remote from the moving >> observer. >> >> The time at which remote events occur is the crux of the matter. You >> can't just ignore it. > > You seem to be missing the point altogether. It has nothing to do with > when the moving observer measures anything. It is about what the moving > observer believes, according to Einstein, when he LEARNS that the clocks > on the rod (moving in his frame) do the following two things. Firstly, > as set, they MEASURE OWLS to be the same in both directions and > secondly, their readings are KNOWN to advance by the same amounts during > the transits, due to symmetry. This is a bit easier to follow if the clocks are stopwatches, so that the observer on the rod ensures that the clocks are started when the pulses are emitted from the centre, and stopped when the pulses arrive at their respective ends. Now, as you correctly say, by symmetry, the clocks advance by the same amount. From the perspective of the moving observer, the clocks also advance by the same amount. However, to the moving observer, there is no symmetry to the setup, and you cannot assume, without proof, that the moving observer finds that the clocks are started when the pulses are emitted. Unless that is the case for the moving observer, the amount by which the clocks advance is not the transit time, so it's an important consideration. How are you going to prove it? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 23:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f98a29c-8350-4858-84ef-9454be8ceaab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387096 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 9:39:12 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > This is a bit easier to follow if the clocks are stopwatches, > so that the observer on the rod ensures that the clocks are > started when the pulses are emitted from the centre, and > stopped when the pulses arrive at their respective ends. Emitted from the center? Have we switched to a different scenario from the one described in the original post in this thread? (The original scenario was "A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. Light signals are sent from one end to the other...") > Now, as you correctly say, by symmetry, the clocks > advance by the same amount. From the perspective of > the moving observer, the clocks also advance by the > same amount. Yes, in terms of the original scenario, the time for each clock between when it emits a pulse and when it receives a pulse from the other clock is the same, and this is true for both the rod frame and the moving frame. > However, to the moving observer, there is no symmetry to > the setup... Right. > ...and you cannot assume that the moving observer finds > that the clocks are started when the pulses are emitted. I can't make sense of this statement if you are talking about the original scenario, in which the clocks are also the emitters of the light pulses. I can understand your statement if you're referring to a scenario in which pulses are emitted from the center of the rod, but I'm not sure that's the scenario we are all talking about. I suggest, to minimize confusion, we stick to the original statement of the scenario, with pulses emitted from each end and traversing the rod to the opposite end. I think it's also helpful to identify the emission and reception events, and describe explicitly what happens, as in the previous message.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 17:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtrsghFh26kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387098 |
On 3/07/2016 4:10 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 9:39:12 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> This is a bit easier to follow if the clocks are stopwatches, so >> that the observer on the rod ensures that the clocks are started >> when the pulses are emitted from the centre, and stopped when the >> pulses arrive at their respective ends. > > Emitted from the center? Have we switched to a different scenario > from the one described in the original post in this thread? (The > original scenario was "A rod has a light source and a clock at each > end. Light signals are sent from one end to the other...") Fair enough, I've mis-remembered the scenario. > >> Now, as you correctly say, by symmetry, the clocks advance by the >> same amount. From the perspective of the moving observer, the >> clocks also advance by the same amount. > > Yes, in terms of the original scenario, the time for each clock > between when it emits a pulse and when it receives a pulse from the > other clock is the same, and this is true for both the rod frame and > the moving frame. > >> However, to the moving observer, there is no symmetry to the >> setup... > > Right. > >> ...and you cannot assume that the moving observer finds that the >> clocks are started when the pulses are emitted. > > I can't make sense of this statement if you are talking about the > original scenario, in which the clocks are also the emitters of the > light pulses. I can understand your statement if you're referring to > a scenario in which pulses are emitted from the center of the rod, > but I'm not sure that's the scenario we are all talking about. I > suggest, to minimize confusion, we stick to the original statement of > the scenario, with pulses emitted from each end and traversing the > rod to the opposite end. I think it's also helpful to identify the > emission and reception events, and describe explicitly what happens, > as in the previous message. > In the context of the correct scenario, the question is whether the moving observer determines that each clock starts advancing when the distant pulse is emitted[*]. Unless that's the case, then the amount by which the clock advances is not the transit time. Consequently, this is not something that HGW can assume - it needs to be proved. Sylvia. [*] Or, equivalently, that each clock stops advancing when the now distant pulse arrives at the other clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 01:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <270b0013-3f3f-4d61-93a2-2f9e5263b05a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387099 |
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> In the context of the correct scenario, the question
> is whether the moving observer determines that each
> clock starts advancing when the distant pulse is
> emitted... Or, equivalently, that each clock stops
> advancing when the now distant pulse arrives at the
> other clock.
I still don't quite understand what you mean. According to the original post, the clocks have been synchronized in the rod's frame ("the clocks are adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to measure the travel times in opposite direction to be equal"), and we know the times when each clock emits a pulse and the times when each clock receives the pulse from the other clock. So there's no ambiguity in the readings of the clocks on the rod when they emit and receive pulses. I don't see how your stopwatches capture the stipulated synchronization of the clocks.
If T1E and T2E are the emission times for Clocks 1 and 2, and if T1R and T2R are the reception times, we have (T2R - T1E) = (T1R - T2E) = L/c. Now, using lower case t to denote the times on clocks moving with and synchronized with the moving observer's frame, the original poster's mistake is that he thinks the fixed proportionality of clock rates between the two frames implies that (t2R - t1E) must equal (t1R - t2E), but this is fallacious reasoning, as explained in the previous post. There, for simplicity, I assumed that the pulses were emitted simultaneously in the rod's frame, but this wasn't actually stated in the original post, so in general all we can say is that (T1R-T1E)/(T2R-T2E) equals (t1R-t1E)/(t2R-t2E).
The point is that the fixed proportionality of clock rates in the two frames does not imply that the travel times of the two pulses are in the same proportion in both frames, it merely implies that the individual clock intervals are in the same proportion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 19:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dts5n4FisqmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387102 |
On 3/07/2016 6:18 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> In the context of the correct scenario, the question is whether the
>> moving observer determines that each clock starts advancing when
>> the distant pulse is emitted... Or, equivalently, that each clock
>> stops advancing when the now distant pulse arrives at the other
>> clock.
>
> I still don't quite understand what you mean. According to the
> original post, the clocks have been synchronized in the rod's frame
> ("the clocks are adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to
> measure the travel times in opposite direction to be equal"), and we
> know the times when each clock emits a pulse and the times when each
> clock receives the pulse from the other clock. So there's no
> ambiguity in the readings of the clocks on the rod when they emit and
> receive pulses. I don't see how your stopwatches capture the
> stipulated synchronization of the clocks.
As you observe below, Henry didn't actually state that the pulses were
emitted at the same time according to his synchronised clocks, but they
might as well be, without changing the substance. If we posit that they
are, then stopwatches that are started at the pulse emission, and
stopped at the pulse arrival will be running, and be synchronised, at
all times while the pulses are travelling. It doesn't change anything in
the thought experiment, but to my mind makes things a bit easier to discuss.
>
> If T1E and T2E are the emission times for Clocks 1 and 2, and if T1R
> and T2R are the reception times, we have (T2R - T1E) = (T1R - T2E) =
> L/c. Now, using lower case t to denote the times on clocks moving
> with and synchronized with the moving observer's frame, the original
> poster's mistake is that he thinks the fixed proportionality of clock
> rates between the two frames implies that (t2R - t1E) must equal (t1R
> - t2E), but this is fallacious reasoning, as explained in the
> previous post. There, for simplicity, I assumed that the pulses were
> emitted simultaneously in the rod's frame, but this wasn't actually
> stated in the original post, so in general all we can say is that
> (T1R-T1E)/(T2R-T2E) equals (t1R-t1E)/(t2R-t2E).
I don't know that that's Henry's mistake, because it's very difficult to
get any sense out of him in these discussions. Certainly, presenting him
with algebra gets one nowhere, which is why I've avoided doing that. At
the moment, I think that he believes that the time elapsed on each clock
represents the time of flight in all frames, and if that's the case, he
should try to prove it.
Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 23:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlb3ej$ib0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387102 |
On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> In the context of the correct scenario, the question is whether the > > If T1E and T2E are the emission times for Clocks 1 and 2, and if T1R > and T2R are the reception times, we have (T2R - T1E) = (T1R - T2E) = > L/c. Now, using lower case t to denote the times on clocks moving > with and synchronized with the moving observer's frame, the original > poster's mistake is that he thinks the fixed proportionality of clock > rates between the two frames implies that (t2R - t1E) must equal (t1R > - t2E), but this is fallacious reasoning, as explained in the > previous post. There, for simplicity, I assumed that the pulses were > emitted simultaneously in the rod's frame, but this wasn't actually > stated in the original post, so in general all we can say is that > (T1R-T1E)/(T2R-T2E) equals (t1R-t1E)/(t2R-t2E). > > The point is that the fixed proportionality of clock rates in the two > frames does not imply that the travel times of the two pulses are in > the same proportion in both frames, it merely implies that the > individual clock intervals are in the same proportion. No that is wrong... I don't think you understand the scenario yet. No measurements or events need to be considered. It's a question of logic. According to Einstein's P2, the signals move at c in the frame of the moving observer and since the rod is moving in that frame, the transit times are different....NO NEED TO MEASURE THEM. That is just another way of saying that the moving observer's clock will advance by DIFFERENT numbers during the opposite transits IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE DIRECTLY DETECTS THE EVENTS YOU DEFINED. However, the moving observer KNOWS that the rod clocks advance buy the SAME amounts during the transits....so why the hell should he ever believe a theory that says his own clock will advance by DIFFERENT amounts when its rate has a fixed ratio with that of the rod clocks? The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nldfp2$1rh8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387110 |
On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/07/2016 11:20 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >> >> However, the moving observer KNOWS that the rod clocks advance buy >> the SAME amounts during the transits....so why the hell should he >> ever believe a theory that says his own clock will advance by >> DIFFERENT amounts when its rate has a fixed ratio with that of the >> rod clocks? >> >> The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'. >> > As I thought, you're assuming that the amount that the clocks advance > by is the transit time of the pulse in the frame of the moving > observer. You can't just assume that, you need to prove it. In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with the clock of the moving observer with a long electrical cable. A signal from the rod clock would start and stop the moving clock.. So the moving clock will advance by the SAME amounts during the opposite transits, just like the rod clocks do. > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtuvkiF2sqvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387165 |
On 4/07/2016 9:03 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 3/07/2016 11:20 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > >>> >>> However, the moving observer KNOWS that the rod clocks advance buy >>> the SAME amounts during the transits....so why the hell should he >>> ever believe a theory that says his own clock will advance by >>> DIFFERENT amounts when its rate has a fixed ratio with that of the >>> rod clocks? >>> >>> The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'. >>> >> As I thought, you're assuming that the amount that the clocks advance >> by is the transit time of the pulse in the frame of the moving >> observer. You can't just assume that, you need to prove it. > > In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with the clock of > the moving observer with a long electrical cable. A signal from the rod > clock would start and stop the moving clock.. I can't see that that would achieve anything. Even if you can address the issues arriving from the finite propagation speed along the cable, and the fact that different parts of the cable are moving at different speeds, all it does is start and stop the moving clock. It doesn't prove that that starting and stopping times on the moving clock correspond to the emission and reception times of the pulses. It seems a total red herring. > So the moving clock will advance by the SAME amounts during the opposite > transits, just like the rod clocks do. You still need to prove that the advancing corresponds to the transits, which you haven't done. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlenpe$4f7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387176 |
On 04/07/16 21:29, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/07/2016 9:03 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 3/07/2016 11:20 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>> >>>> However, the moving observer KNOWS that the rod clocks advance buy >>>> the SAME amounts during the transits....so why the hell should he >>>> ever believe a theory that says his own clock will advance by >>>> DIFFERENT amounts when its rate has a fixed ratio with that of the >>>> rod clocks? >>>> >>>> The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'. >>>> >>> As I thought, you're assuming that the amount that the clocks advance >>> by is the transit time of the pulse in the frame of the moving >>> observer. You can't just assume that, you need to prove it. >> >> In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with the clock of >> the moving observer with a long electrical cable. A signal from the rod >> clock would start and stop the moving clock.. > > I can't see that that would achieve anything. Even if you can address > the issues arriving from the finite propagation speed along the cable, > and the fact that different parts of the cable are moving at different > speeds, all it does is start and stop the moving clock. It doesn't prove > that that starting and stopping times on the moving clock correspond to > the emission and reception times of the pulses. It seems a total red > herring. It is not. The aim is to show that the time are the same, not to give an accurate figure. The idea is perfectly sound. Only one cable is needed and the start and stop signals sent as simultaneous pairs. In fact it doesn't even need a cable. It can be done with radio or light, using a transmitter at the mid point of the rod. That will inform the moving observer that the times are equal in the rod frame. It also proves that they are equal according to his own clock. ..so what degree of insanity would make him conclude that the signals should take DIFFERENT times when he knows damn well they don't. >> So the moving clock will advance by the SAME amounts during the opposite >> transits, just like the rod clocks do. > > You still need to prove that the advancing corresponds to the transits, > which you haven't done. > > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 10:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <du0bq8F8bprU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387203 |
On 5/07/2016 8:25 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/07/16 21:29, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/07/2016 9:03 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 3/07/2016 11:20 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> However, the moving observer KNOWS that the rod clocks advance buy >>>>> the SAME amounts during the transits....so why the hell should he >>>>> ever believe a theory that says his own clock will advance by >>>>> DIFFERENT amounts when its rate has a fixed ratio with that of the >>>>> rod clocks? >>>>> >>>>> The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'. >>>>> >>>> As I thought, you're assuming that the amount that the clocks advance >>>> by is the transit time of the pulse in the frame of the moving >>>> observer. You can't just assume that, you need to prove it. >>> >>> In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with the clock of >>> the moving observer with a long electrical cable. A signal from the rod >>> clock would start and stop the moving clock.. >> >> I can't see that that would achieve anything. Even if you can address >> the issues arriving from the finite propagation speed along the cable, >> and the fact that different parts of the cable are moving at different >> speeds, all it does is start and stop the moving clock. It doesn't prove >> that that starting and stopping times on the moving clock correspond to >> the emission and reception times of the pulses. It seems a total red >> herring. > > It is not. The aim is to show that the time are the same, not to give an > accurate figure. It needs to be accurate enough to make the point, and the effects discussed would be of the same order as the periods of time you're trying to measure. > The idea is perfectly sound. Only one cable is needed > and the start and stop signals sent as simultaneous pairs. In fact it > doesn't even need a cable. It can be done with radio or light, using a > transmitter at the mid point of the rod. How fast does the light signal propagate in the frame of the moving observer? Can you prove that the emission of the signal from the mid point of the rod occurs simultaneously with the emission of the pulses at the ends of the rod, in the frame of the moving observer? If not, then they're worthless. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 07:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlh816$1mk0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387213 |
On 05/07/16 10:03, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/07/2016 8:25 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> I can't see that that would achieve anything. Even if you can address >>> the issues arriving from the finite propagation speed along the cable, >>> and the fact that different parts of the cable are moving at different >>> speeds, all it does is start and stop the moving clock. It doesn't prove >>> that that starting and stopping times on the moving clock correspond to >>> the emission and reception times of the pulses. It seems a total red >>> herring. >> >> It is not. The aim is to show that the time are the same, not to give an >> accurate figure. > > It needs to be accurate enough to make the point, and the effects > discussed would be of the same order as the periods of time you're > trying to measure. > >> The idea is perfectly sound. Only one cable is needed >> and the start and stop signals sent as simultaneous pairs. In fact it >> doesn't even need a cable. It can be done with radio or light, using a >> transmitter at the mid point of the rod. > > How fast does the light signal propagate in the frame of the moving > observer? That is irrelevant. The Both starting times are sent together and both finishing times are sent together....coded to tell them apart. So the moving observer knows they take the same times in the rod frame...and that also PROVES that his own clock advances by the same amounts during the opposite transits. > Can you prove that the emission of the signal from the mid point of the > rod occurs simultaneously with the emission of the pulses at the ends of > the rod, in the frame of the moving observer? If not, then they're > worthless. Again, irrelevant. Both signals are sent at the same instant from the same point in the rod frame. How could they not be sent at the same instant in any other frame? > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 11:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <du3681Fb1glU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387241 |
On 6/07/2016 7:15 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 05/07/16 10:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 5/07/2016 8:25 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> I can't see that that would achieve anything. Even if you can address >>>> the issues arriving from the finite propagation speed along the cable, >>>> and the fact that different parts of the cable are moving at different >>>> speeds, all it does is start and stop the moving clock. It doesn't >>>> prove >>>> that that starting and stopping times on the moving clock correspond to >>>> the emission and reception times of the pulses. It seems a total red >>>> herring. >>> >>> It is not. The aim is to show that the time are the same, not to give an >>> accurate figure. >> >> It needs to be accurate enough to make the point, and the effects >> discussed would be of the same order as the periods of time you're >> trying to measure. >> >>> The idea is perfectly sound. Only one cable is needed >>> and the start and stop signals sent as simultaneous pairs. In fact it >>> doesn't even need a cable. It can be done with radio or light, using a >>> transmitter at the mid point of the rod. >> >> How fast does the light signal propagate in the frame of the moving >> observer? > > That is irrelevant. The Both starting times are sent together and both > finishing times are sent together....coded to tell them apart. So the > moving observer knows they take the same times in the rod frame...and > that also PROVES that his own clock advances by the same amounts during > the opposite transits. > >> Can you prove that the emission of the signal from the mid point of the >> rod occurs simultaneously with the emission of the pulses at the ends of >> the rod, in the frame of the moving observer? If not, then they're >> worthless. > > Again, irrelevant. Both signals are sent at the same instant from the > same point in the rod frame. How could they not be sent at the same > instant in any other frame? > >> Sylvia. > You need to clarify what signals are sent, where they are sent from, when they are sent in the rod's frame, and what they are intended to indicate. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 11:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <du5o8lFu2s2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387267 |
On 6/07/2016 11:46 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 6/07/2016 7:15 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 05/07/16 10:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 5/07/2016 8:25 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >>>>> I can't see that that would achieve anything. Even if you can address >>>>> the issues arriving from the finite propagation speed along the cable, >>>>> and the fact that different parts of the cable are moving at different >>>>> speeds, all it does is start and stop the moving clock. It doesn't >>>>> prove >>>>> that that starting and stopping times on the moving clock >>>>> correspond to >>>>> the emission and reception times of the pulses. It seems a total red >>>>> herring. >>>> >>>> It is not. The aim is to show that the time are the same, not to >>>> give an >>>> accurate figure. >>> >>> It needs to be accurate enough to make the point, and the effects >>> discussed would be of the same order as the periods of time you're >>> trying to measure. >>> >>>> The idea is perfectly sound. Only one cable is needed >>>> and the start and stop signals sent as simultaneous pairs. In fact it >>>> doesn't even need a cable. It can be done with radio or light, using a >>>> transmitter at the mid point of the rod. >>> >>> How fast does the light signal propagate in the frame of the moving >>> observer? >> >> That is irrelevant. The Both starting times are sent together and both >> finishing times are sent together....coded to tell them apart. So the >> moving observer knows they take the same times in the rod frame...and >> that also PROVES that his own clock advances by the same amounts during >> the opposite transits. >> >>> Can you prove that the emission of the signal from the mid point of the >>> rod occurs simultaneously with the emission of the pulses at the ends of >>> the rod, in the frame of the moving observer? If not, then they're >>> worthless. >> >> Again, irrelevant. Both signals are sent at the same instant from the >> same point in the rod frame. How could they not be sent at the same >> instant in any other frame? >> >>> Sylvia. >> > > You need to clarify what signals are sent, where they are sent from, > when they are sent in the rod's frame, and what they are intended to > indicate. > > Sylvia. Really? You don't want to clarify? I suspect that's because you know that the more you clarify, the less you can obfuscate. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ab8b2a8-a1ca-41e1-8963-ab94b6314663@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387165 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 3/07/2016 11:20 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > >> However, the moving observer KNOWS that the rod clocks advance buy > >> the SAME amounts during the transits....so why the hell should he > >> ever believe a theory that says his own clock will advance by > >> DIFFERENT amounts when its rate has a fixed ratio with that of the > >> rod clocks? > >> > >> The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'. > >> > > As I thought, you're assuming that the amount that the clocks advance > > by is the transit time of the pulse in the frame of the moving > > observer. You can't just assume that, you need to prove it. > > In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with the clock of > the moving observer with a long electrical cable. A signal from the rod > clock would start and stop the moving clock.. > So the moving clock will advance by the SAME amounts during the opposite > transits, just like the rod clocks do. > No need to do that. If the clocks are synched all you need is that the observers at both end to agree on the time of emission Te and read the time of arrival.....the transit time T_t is: T_t= Ta-Te.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nleo17$4od$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387189 |
On 04/07/16 22:47, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with the >> clock of the moving observer with a long electrical cable. A signal >> from the rod clock would start and stop the moving clock.. So the >> moving clock will advance by the SAME amounts during the opposite >> transits, just like the rod clocks do. >> > > No need to do that. If the clocks are synched all you need is that > the observers at both end to agree on the time of emission Te and > read the time of arrival.....the transit time T_t is: T_t= Ta-Te. Correct...see my reply to Sylvia...send radio signals to the moving observer from a transmitter at the midpoint of the rod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 19:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d8e0c21-629d-48e3-9f26-b93f7ee3b94f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387204 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/07/16 22:47, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> > >> In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with the > >> clock of the moving observer with a long electrical cable. A signal > >> from the rod clock would start and stop the moving clock.. So the > >> moving clock will advance by the SAME amounts during the opposite > >> transits, just like the rod clocks do. > >> > > > > No need to do that. If the clocks are synched all you need is that > > the observers at both end to agree on the time of emission Te and > > read the time of arrival.....the transit time T_t is: T_t= Ta-Te. > > Correct...see my reply to Sylvia...send radio signals to the moving > observer from a transmitter at the midpoint of the rod. No the moving observer uses the delta form of the LT to predict the transit time in the rod frame and the result is the same for both directions as follows: Delta(T')=L/c*gamma
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <841efca0-c015-4df4-b7f5-5c4b8bec1f51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387214 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:34:40 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 04/07/16 22:47, kenseto wrote: > > > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > >> On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >> > > >> In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with the > > >> clock of the moving observer with a long electrical cable. A signal > > >> from the rod clock would start and stop the moving clock.. So the > > >> moving clock will advance by the SAME amounts during the opposite > > >> transits, just like the rod clocks do. > > >> > > > > > > No need to do that. If the clocks are synched all you need is that > > > the observers at both end to agree on the time of emission Te and > > > read the time of arrival.....the transit time T_t is: T_t= Ta-Te. > > > > Correct...see my reply to Sylvia...send radio signals to the moving > > observer from a transmitter at the midpoint of the rod. > > No the moving observer uses the delta form of the LT to predict the transit time in the rod frame and the result is the same for both directions as follows: > Delta(T')=L/c*gamma Sorry it should be: Delta(T')=Gamma*L/c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 07:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlh8f2$1n7g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387216 |
On 05/07/16 13:42, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:34:40 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 04/07/16 22:47, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/16 15:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> In principle, it is possible to connect the rod clocks with >>>>> the clock of the moving observer with a long electrical >>>>> cable. A signal from the rod clock would start and stop the >>>>> moving clock.. So the moving clock will advance by the SAME >>>>> amounts during the opposite transits, just like the rod >>>>> clocks do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No need to do that. If the clocks are synched all you need is >>>> that the observers at both end to agree on the time of >>>> emission Te and read the time of arrival.....the transit time >>>> T_t is: T_t= Ta-Te. >>> >>> Correct...see my reply to Sylvia...send radio signals to the >>> moving observer from a transmitter at the midpoint of the rod. >> >> No the moving observer uses the delta form of the LT to predict >> the transit time in the rod frame and the result is the same for >> both directions as follows: Delta(T')=L/c*gamma > > Sorry it should be: Delta(T')=Gamma*L/c LTs don't exist. They were invented purely to avoid accepting the obvious after the MMX proved BaTh correct. They were also a direct result of the 'light clock' debacle which wild indeed be a correct analysis IF and aether existed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web