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 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b6aad19-1c01-460b-a494-4f38fdad1769@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387294 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:05:48 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >> > Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if > >> > they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the > >> > event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS > >> > to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. > >> > >> This amuses me. > >> > >> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events > >> happened simultaneously. > >> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an > >> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? > > >Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's frame until B informed him. By that time, > >the events already happened and there is no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. > > You didn't answer his question. > > Why could A not observe the events himself, decide whether or not they > were simultaneous, and then hear from B what B's observation of whether > the events were simultaneous or not? The events already happened and gone so how A to observe them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 15:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlj8s6$ni5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387296 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:05:48 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> >> > Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if >> >> > they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the >> >> > event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS >> >> > to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. >> >> >> >> This amuses me. >> >> >> >> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events >> >> happened simultaneously. >> >> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an >> >> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? >> >> >Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's frame until B informed him. By that time, >> >the events already happened and there is no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. >> >> You didn't answer his question. >> >> Why could A not observe the events himself, decide whether or not they >> were simultaneous, and then hear from B what B's observation of whether >> the events were simultaneous or not? >The events already happened and gone so how A to observe them? Why would the events be unobservable and then gone? A and B could be observing the same thing, either accidentally or deliberately (C says "Watch what happens when I push the button! Ready?....NOW!")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 10:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlj9k6$h4c$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387296 |
On 7/6/2016 10:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:05:48 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if >>>>> they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the >>>>> event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS >>>>> to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. >>>> >>>> This amuses me. >>>> >>>> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events >>>> happened simultaneously. >>>> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an >>>> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? >> >>> Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's frame until B informed him. By that time, >>> the events already happened and there is no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. >> >> You didn't answer his question. >> >> Why could A not observe the events himself, decide whether or not they >> were simultaneous, and then hear from B what B's observation of whether >> the events were simultaneous or not? > > The events already happened and gone so how A to observe them? > The same way B observed them. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nlj8os$1av$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387294 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nlj6ms$glh$2@pcls7.std.com... |Why could A not observe the events himself, decide whether or not they |were simultaneous, and then hear from B what B's observation of whether |the events were simultaneous or not? He could. But the whole idea of observation includes information exchange. It's incredibly stupid to invent a system in which everybody has to ibserve everything for himself and can't rely on others. Of course, "incredibly stupid" couldn't prevent your idiot guru from inventing such a system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 06:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljrak$1cej$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387258 |
On 06/07/16 08:50, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> >>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >>>> to be simultaneous also. >>> >>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? >> >> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur >> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which >> one would precede the other and why. >> > > Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will > occur simultaneously in all frames. In my experiment, let's assume that signals sent from the midpoint of the rod is used to synch the clocks at each end. It follows that light pulses emitted from the clocks at a prearranged reading will pass the midpoint simultaneously and reach the two target clocks when their readings are identical. It also follows that signals immediately sent back to the midpoint will arrive at the midpoint simultaneously...and simultaneity at a point is obviously absolute. Let T1E and T2E be the emission times for rod Clocks 1 and 2 , and T1R and T2R are the reception times. Now, on receipt of those signals, a transmitter at the midpoint immediately relays the four bits of information to the moving observer. The two signals representing T1E and T2E are sent simultaneously from that point whilst the two signals representing T1R and T2R are sent some time later, also simultaneously. Quite obviously, the 'start' signals reach the moving observer simultaneously...and so do the 'finish' signals. His clock therefore records both transit times to be equal and NOT unequal as predicted by Einstein's P2. > Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some > frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes > first will depend on the frame. Simultaneity is not dependent on human vision and the finite speed of light. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljs4g$1dp4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387334 |
On 7/6/2016 3:57 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 08:50, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> >>>> >>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >>>>> to be simultaneous also. >>>> >>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? >>> >>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur >>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which >>> one would precede the other and why. >>> >> >> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will >> occur simultaneously in all frames. > > In my experiment, let's assume that signals sent from the midpoint of > the rod is used to synch the clocks at each end. That procedure only holds in the rest frame of the rod. It does not work in any other frame. > It follows that light > pulses emitted from the clocks at a prearranged reading will pass the > midpoint simultaneously and reach the two target clocks when their > readings are identical. That only follows in the rest frame of the clock. It does not follow in any other frame because the initial synch procedure does not work in any other frame. > > It also follows that signals immediately sent back to the midpoint will > arrive at the midpoint simultaneously...and simultaneity at a point is > obviously absolute. > > Let T1E and T2E be the emission times for rod Clocks 1 and 2 , and T1R > and T2R are the reception times. > > Now, on receipt of those signals, a transmitter at the midpoint > immediately relays the four bits of information to the moving observer. > The two signals representing T1E and T2E are sent simultaneously from > that point whilst the two signals representing T1R and T2R are sent some > time later, also simultaneously. > > Quite obviously, the 'start' signals reach the moving observer > simultaneously...and so do the 'finish' signals. His clock therefore > records both transit times to be equal and NOT unequal as predicted by > Einstein's P2. > >> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some >> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes >> first will depend on the frame. > > Simultaneity is not dependent on human vision and the finite speed of > light. That's right. I didn't say that it was dependent on human vision and the finite speed of light. > >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 11:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <du5p07Fu848U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387334 |
On 7/07/2016 6:57 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 08:50, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> >>>> >>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >>>>> to be simultaneous also. >>>> >>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? >>> >>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur >>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which >>> one would precede the other and why. >>> >> >> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will >> occur simultaneously in all frames. > > In my experiment, let's assume that signals sent from the midpoint of > the rod is used to synch the clocks at each end. It follows that light > pulses emitted from the clocks at a prearranged reading will pass the > midpoint simultaneously and reach the two target clocks when their > readings are identical. > > It also follows that signals immediately sent back to the midpoint will > arrive at the midpoint simultaneously...and simultaneity at a point is > obviously absolute. > > Let T1E and T2E be the emission times for rod Clocks 1 and 2 , and T1R > and T2R are the reception times. > > Now, on receipt of those signals, a transmitter at the midpoint > immediately relays the four bits of information to the moving observer. > The two signals representing T1E and T2E are sent simultaneously from > that point whilst the two signals representing T1R and T2R are sent some > time later, also simultaneously. > > Quite obviously, the 'start' signals reach the moving observer > simultaneously...and so do the 'finish' signals. His clock therefore > records both transit times to be equal and NOT unequal as predicted by > Einstein's P2. There's no question that the moving observer receives the two start signals simultaneously and the two finish signals simultaneously, but the moving observer cannot just take them at face value. The observer has to look at how long it took for the signals, from T1E and T2E respectively, to reach the midpoint. The observer will conclude that the times are different, and that the fact that the signals representing T1E and T2E arrive simultaneously means that T1E and T2E were NOT simultaneous in the observer's frame. Ditto for T1R and T2R. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 12:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <du8im5Fk2nkU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387360 |
On 7/07/2016 11:19 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 7/07/2016 6:57 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 06/07/16 08:50, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are >>>>>> known >>>>>> to be simultaneous also. >>>>> >>>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? >>>> >>>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must >>>> occur >>>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me >>>> which >>>> one would precede the other and why. >>>> >>> >>> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will >>> occur simultaneously in all frames. >> >> In my experiment, let's assume that signals sent from the midpoint of >> the rod is used to synch the clocks at each end. It follows that light >> pulses emitted from the clocks at a prearranged reading will pass the >> midpoint simultaneously and reach the two target clocks when their >> readings are identical. >> >> It also follows that signals immediately sent back to the midpoint will >> arrive at the midpoint simultaneously...and simultaneity at a point is >> obviously absolute. >> >> Let T1E and T2E be the emission times for rod Clocks 1 and 2 , and T1R >> and T2R are the reception times. >> >> Now, on receipt of those signals, a transmitter at the midpoint >> immediately relays the four bits of information to the moving observer. >> The two signals representing T1E and T2E are sent simultaneously from >> that point whilst the two signals representing T1R and T2R are sent some >> time later, also simultaneously. >> >> Quite obviously, the 'start' signals reach the moving observer >> simultaneously...and so do the 'finish' signals. His clock therefore >> records both transit times to be equal and NOT unequal as predicted by >> Einstein's P2. > > There's no question that the moving observer receives the two start > signals simultaneously and the two finish signals simultaneously, but > the moving observer cannot just take them at face value. The observer > has to look at how long it took for the signals, from T1E and T2E > respectively, to reach the midpoint. The observer will conclude that the > times are different, and that the fact that the signals representing T1E > and T2E arrive simultaneously means that T1E and T2E were NOT > simultaneous in the observer's frame. > > Ditto for T1R and T2R. > > Sylvia. > Hmm.... no comeback. Could it be that Henry has finally got it? Or does his idée fixe simply convince him that my argument is wrong, even though he can't quite put his finger on the flaw? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 16:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlcv8m$10v6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387112 |
On 04/07/16 15:11, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/07/2016 11:50 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: assume - it needs to be proved. >> >> An advance of a clock reading is a measure of a time interval. Both rod >> clocks are KNOWN to advance by the same amounts during the transits. >> There is no need to know anything else. > > It's a measure of the time interval where the clock is. That's what > clocks do - they measure time where they are. If you want to attach a > wider meaning to what they measure, you need to justify it, not just > assume it. Nobody is interested in the actual value of the reading. The important fact is that the readings advance by the same amount during the opposite transits....and so do all clocks in the universe no matter what they are doing. > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 15:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtu9gnF1b98U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387112 |
On 3/07/2016 11:50 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 03/07/16 17:17, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 3/07/2016 4:10 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com 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[*]. 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. > > An advance of a clock reading is a measure of a time interval. Both rod > clocks are KNOWN to advance by the same amounts during the transits. > There is no need to know anything else. It's a measure of the time interval where the clock is. That's what clocks do - they measure time where they are. If you want to attach a wider meaning to what they measure, you need to justify it, not just assume it. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 22:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlb105$efh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387096 |
On 03/07/16 14:39, Sylvia Else wrote: >> 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. No you can't do that with light. > 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? The moving observer is informed about everything that happens. > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c25d99b-b46e-4880-b628-ffa9e4b3f34c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386788 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 3:21:37 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. > > C1_________L__________C2 > > Light signals are sent from one end to the other and the clocks are > adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to measure the travel > times in opposite direction to be equal, as they must be due to > symmetry. Their readings when the signals leave and arrive are recorded > and are clearly visible. > > An observer moving past the rod says the clocks are wrongly set because > according to his university text, the signals are moving at c in his > frame and the rod is moving. Therefore the signals take different times > to transit the rod. > > C1_________L__________C2 > O2>v > > O2 says the signals take times L'/(c+/-v) to cross the rod in the two > directions...when it is obvious that the times must be equal. > > Q) How can every passing observer have an influence on what the clocks > should read? > Need I say more? > I really think this example highlights the degree of the insanity that > afflicts all supporters of that king of science fiction. Since you're a dingleberry I guess as stupid as you, Oh wait, your so stupid that you didn't know that the term refers to Herbert Dingle, an anti-relativity crank. Damn you're slow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb58389e-b798-495f-875d-20b43a23fb70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386788 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 4:21:37 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. > > C1_________L__________C2 > > Light signals are sent from one end to the other and the clocks are > adjusted by an attached observer so they are set to measure the travel > times in opposite direction to be equal, as they must be due to > symmetry. Their readings when the signals leave and arrive are recorded > and are clearly visible. > > An observer moving past the rod says the clocks are wrongly set because > according to his university text, the signals are moving at c in his > frame and the rod is moving. Therefore the signals take different times > to transit the rod. > > C1_________L__________C2 > O2>v > > O2 says the signals take times L'/(c+/-v) to cross the rod in the two > directions...when it is obvious that the times must be equal. > > Q) How can every passing observer have an influence on what the clocks > should read? They don't. > Need I say more? Please don't. > I really think this example highlights the degree of the insanity that > afflicts all supporters of that king of science fiction. You are the one so afflicted by SF. Back in the 40's Doc Smith completely ignored relativity in his stories and so did many others. REAL measurements shows that both you and he were wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33e4d475-d1da-47f0-baae-047f61ba7c2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386788 |
El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 6:21:37 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. > > C1_________L__________C2 > What time and space are you talking about? Perhaps you are considering the rod and the clocks at the absolute 1686 Newtonian rest, showing the clocks the corresponding absolute time? Without specifying an initial context, all what you say mean absolutely nothing. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 06:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nkunj4$dt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386818 |
On 29/06/16 02:17, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 6:21:37 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: >> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. >> >> C1_________L__________C2 >> > What time and space are you talking about? Perhaps you are considering the rod > and the clocks at the absolute 1686 Newtonian rest, showing the clocks the > corresponding absolute time? > > Without specifying an initial context, all what you say mean absolutely nothing. 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. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 16:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkuqno$4rc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386840 |
On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There > can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals > should take different times to transit the rod. I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for credibility. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 23:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl0ies$b0d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386846 |
On 29/06/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/28/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There >> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals >> should take different times to transit the rod. > > I take it from your inane retort that you are a booblish ninny-mumkins > who just says stuff off the top of his head without regard for credibility. Bodkin, being a smartarse wont help you. The sources are connected to the ends of the rod. If there is some condition by which they will NOT take the same time to transit the rod, please tell the world all about it. You might also try using bullets instead of light signals....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl0lpa$fcp$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386881 |
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. 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 | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 06:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl19lq$1g0v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386887 |
On 30/06/16 00:25, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> 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. Bodkin, the rod is not 'moving'. It is just a rod in space. > 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. >> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... No answer from Bodkin...that's because he has none. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 15:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1av3$1htb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386919 |
On 6/29/2016 3:05 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/06/16 00:25, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 8:29 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> 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. > > 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. > It is just a rod in space. Moving or not moving? It makes a difference. 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. > >> 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. 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. > >>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... > > No answer from Bodkin...that's because he has none. > >> >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web