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 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 14:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljnee$168l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387318 |
On 7/6/2016 2:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/2016 4:28 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 09:43, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Do you agree that the term "kinetic energy of a particle of mass m" >>>> (at least in Newtonian mechanics) refers to the quantity (1/2)m|v|^2 >>>> where v is the velocity of the particle? And do you agree that the >>>> velocity of a particle is frame dependent? >>> >>> I have explained this before. >>> >>> When an object which is moving comes to rest (assume no heat loss), the >>> change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. >> >> Don't be silly. >> In one frame, a car has a speed of 30 m/s and a mass of 1400 kg. It has >> a KE of 630 kJ. When it comes to rest, it will have a speed of 0 m/s in >> this frame and will have a change of KE of -630 kJ. >> In another frame, the very same car has a speed of 10 m/s and a mass of >> 1400 kg. It has a KE of 70 kJ. If it comes to rest in this frame, it >> will have a speed of 0 m/s in this frame and will have a change of KE of >> -70 kJ. >> See? Different changes in kinetic energy. > > Draper, you are an idiot. Who? > Just accept the fact and shut up. Why? > > When you put your foot on the brake, The whole Earth accelerates. Oh, so you didn't mean "when the object comes to rest", you meant "when the object comes to rest RELATIVE TO THE EARTH", then the change in kinetic energy is the same. I don't know why you can't say what you really mean. No wonder you say such silly things all the time. Now, why is coming to rest RELATIVE TO THE EARTH a special case? > > Your car's loss of 'KE' plus the Earth's gain, is the same in all > observer frames. I published the quite simple maths last year and since > I did not keep a record, will let you do it now for homework. > >> Oh, I see. You meant "comes to rest" in some PARTICULAR frame. Which >> frame did have in mind and why? > > No I did not mean that. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 07:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljsi6$1ejs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387324 |
On 07/07/16 05:50, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 2:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> Don't be silly. In one frame, a car has a speed of 30 m/s and a >>> mass of 1400 kg. It has a KE of 630 kJ. When it comes to rest, it >>> will have a speed of 0 m/s in this frame and will have a change >>> of KE of -630 kJ. In another frame, the very same car has a speed >>> of 10 m/s and a mass of 1400 kg. It has a KE of 70 kJ. If it >>> comes to rest in this frame, it will have a speed of 0 m/s in >>> this frame and will have a change of KE of -70 kJ. See? Different >>> changes in kinetic energy. >> >> Draper, you are an idiot. > > Who? > >> Just accept the fact and shut up. > > Why? > >> >> When you put your foot on the brake, The whole Earth accelerates. > > Oh, so you didn't mean "when the object comes to rest", you meant > "when the object comes to rest RELATIVE TO THE EARTH", then the > change in kinetic energy is the same. No Bokdin, I mean there is no loss of KE at all, (assuming no heat loss) > I don't know why you can't say what you really mean. No wonder you > say such silly things all the time. I'm not surprised that science seems 'silly' to lay people like yourself. That has always been the case. > Now, why is coming to rest RELATIVE TO THE EARTH a special case? Idiot. It doesn't matter where it comes to rest. You are not meant to be a physicist Bodkin so why don't you stop trying? >> Your car's loss of 'KE' plus the Earth's gain, is the same in all >> observer frames. I published the quite simple maths last year and >> since I did not keep a record, will let you do it now for >> homework. >> >>> Oh, I see. You meant "comes to rest" in some PARTICULAR frame. >>> Which frame did have in mind and why? >> >> No I did not mean that. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 13:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlm6cl$l0k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387342 |
On 7/6/2016 4:18 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Just accept the fact and shut up. Henry, I think it's probably worth your attention that all that's been accomplished in this thread is surfacing that Ken Seto doesn't even know how to find coordinate x values for a simple 1-dimensional problem. You should be proud for what you have exposed, even if that's not what you intended to do. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 22:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <868335ab-84de-40a9-8feb-41cab548fede@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387318 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 2:44:51 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 07:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/5/2016 4:28 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> When an object which is moving comes to rest (assume no heat loss), the > >> change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. However you quibble, the literal meaning of your words is that the change in the kinetic energy of an INDIVIDUAL OBJECT is not frame dependent as it changes its state of motion. THIS IS FALSE. See below. > > Don't be silly. > > In one frame, a car has a speed of 30 m/s and a mass of 1400 kg. It has > > a KE of 630 kJ. When it comes to rest, it will have a speed of 0 m/s in > > this frame and will have a change of KE of -630 kJ. > > In another frame, the very same car has a speed of 10 m/s and a mass of > > 1400 kg. It has a KE of 70 kJ. If it comes to rest in this frame, it > > will have a speed of 0 m/s in this frame and will have a change of KE of > > -70 kJ. > > See? Different changes in kinetic energy. > > Draper, you are an idiot. Just accept the fact and shut up. > > When you put your foot on the brake, The whole Earth accelerates. > > Your car's loss of 'KE' plus the Earth's gain, is the same in all > observer frames. I published the quite simple maths last year and since > I did not keep a record, will let you do it now for homework. Not even a case of "simple maths", since this is merely an outcome of the fact that the center of momentum of a system of particles represents an inertial frame. But changes in the kinetic energy of INDIVIDUAL PARTICLES of the system are frame dependent no matter how you try to twist your words. What you try to pretend that you "really meant" and what you actually stated are two different things. But then, we all know that you are a liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5a8105c-c354-418c-b446-b4696b793bc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387243 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:27:54 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > When an object which is moving comes to rest, the > change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. "When an object comes to rest" in what frame? Are you saying that the state of rest is not frame dependent? If an object is at rest in one frame, is it at rest in all frames? Doesn't that contradict the very definition of a frame? > If that was not correct, you could invent a perpetual > motion machine... Energy and momentum are strictly conserved in Newtonian mechanics, and yet kinetic energy (and velocity and momentum) are frame dependent in Newtonian mechanics. The frame dependence of rest, speed, momentum, energy, etc., does not imply that a perpetual motion machine can be created. How do you reconcile your "c+v" claims with your "speed is not frame dependent" claim? Are you really saying now that the speed of light (for example) is NOT frame dependent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljn5s$15pr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387261 |
On 06/07/16 09:31, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:27:54 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> > >> If that was not correct, you could invent a perpetual motion >> machine... > > Energy and momentum are strictly conserved in Newtonian mechanics, > and yet kinetic energy (and velocity and momentum) are frame > dependent in Newtonian mechanics. The frame dependence of rest, > speed, momentum, energy, etc., does not imply that a perpetual motion > machine can be created. > > How do you reconcile your "c+v" claims with your "speed is not frame > dependent" claim? Are you really saying now that the speed of light > (for example) is NOT frame dependent? Your ignorance highlights the huge gap that exists between the real physicist and the 'would-be-if-could-be's that hang around NGs like this one. Why don't you join the perpetual motion club that your fellow dingleberries set up last year.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 16:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6cbd5d37-4d62-4f20-be9d-91ceb6164381@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387320 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > When an object which is moving comes to rest, the > change in kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent. "When an object comes to rest" in what frame? Are you saying that the state of rest is not frame dependent? If an object is at rest in one frame, is it at rest in all frames?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nldg82$1sga$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387144 |
On 04/07/16 10:07, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > Yes, we agree on this. > >> You are claiming that the clocks which are correctly synched in >> their own frame are not correctly synched in any other frame... > > That’s close but not exactly what I’m claiming. If you replace the > word “correctly” with “inertially”, then your statement would > accurately express what I am claiming. No choice of synchronization > is more or less “correct” than any other, but for any given frame > there is a unique synchronization in terms of which inertia is > isotropic, meaning the same in all directions. If you want a system > of space and time coordinates in which the inertial resistance to > acceleration of a resting object is the same in all directions, then > you need to use inertial synchronization. Since energy has inertia, > and energy is frame dependent, it follows that inertia is frame > dependent, and therefore inertial synchronization is frame > dependent. Energy is NOT frame dependent. Learn some basic physics then come back. > >> ...and you are trying to use that principle to refute my proof that >> the theory on which your claim is based is not valid. > > Not exactly. The refutation of your proof is based on the empirical > fact that energy has inertia. If energy did not have inertia, then > special relativity would be invalid. But an overwhelming abundance > of evidence has shown that energy does indeed have inertia (E=mc^2). > This is what was missing in Newtonian mechanics, and it’s easy to > understand why it went unnoticed for so long, because the constant of > proportionality between energy and inertia is so small (1/c^2). > >> Momentum and KE are not intrinsic properties of objects. > > Right, they are frame-dependent properties, and since inertia is a > frame dependent property, it follows that synchronization based on > inertia must also be frame-dependent. From this empirical fact, > special relativity follows. Gawd! you really are one very confused nutcase... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nle2mf$vgr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387111 |
On 7/3/2016 8:28 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 03/07/16 18:18, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> >> The point is that the fixed proportionality of clock rates in the two >> frames does not imply that the travel times of the two pulses are in >> the same proportion in both frames, it merely implies that the >> individual clock intervals are in the same proportion. > > Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. Oh, but it is. Lots and lots of examples of this. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlep63$653$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387160 |
On 05/07/16 02:25, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/3/2016 8:28 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> The point is that the fixed proportionality of clock rates in the two >>> frames does not imply that the travel times of the two pulses are in >>> the same proportion in both frames, it merely implies that the >>> individual clock intervals are in the same proportion. >> >> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. > > Oh, but it is. > > Lots and lots of examples of this. ...but you can't actually think of any right now, eh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 07:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlg9ot$51d$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387207 |
On 7/4/2016 5:49 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 05/07/16 02:25, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/3/2016 8:28 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> >>>> The point is that the fixed proportionality of clock rates in the two >>>> frames does not imply that the travel times of the two pulses are in >>>> the same proportion in both frames, it merely implies that the >>>> individual clock intervals are in the same proportion. >>> >>> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. >> >> Oh, but it is. >> >> Lots and lots of examples of this. > > ...but you can't actually think of any right now, eh? > > Sure, I can. Two billiard balls of identical mass approaching each other in the center-of-mass frame. Their speeds are the same in this frame. The same two balls in the rest frame of the table (only one of the balls was struck by the cue), their speeds are different. Sameness here is OBVIOUSLY frame dependent. As a rule, "Sameness is not frame dependent" sucks, and it's well known since Galileo that such a rule does not work in nature. I thought you liked 19th century physics. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 07:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlh8ta$1nhm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387225 |
On 05/07/16 22:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/4/2016 5:49 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>>> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. >>> >>> Oh, but it is. >>> >>> Lots and lots of examples of this. >> >> ...but you can't actually think of any right now, eh? >> >> > > Sure, I can. > Two billiard balls of identical mass approaching each other in the > center-of-mass frame. Their speeds are the same in this frame. > The same two balls in the rest frame of the table (only one of the balls > was struck by the cue), their speeds are different. > Sameness here is OBVIOUSLY frame dependent. Speed is not an intrinsic property...try again.... > I thought you liked 19th century physics. It still reigns supreme.... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 17:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlhdfo$1u3a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387245 |
On 7/5/2016 4:30 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 05/07/16 22:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/4/2016 5:49 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. >>>> >>>> Oh, but it is. >>>> >>>> Lots and lots of examples of this. >>> >>> ...but you can't actually think of any right now, eh? >>> >>> >> >> Sure, I can. >> Two billiard balls of identical mass approaching each other in the >> center-of-mass frame. Their speeds are the same in this frame. >> The same two balls in the rest frame of the table (only one of the balls >> was struck by the cue), their speeds are different. >> Sameness here is OBVIOUSLY frame dependent. > > Speed is not an intrinsic property...try again.... But you didn't say sameness of intrinsic properties is frame dependent. You just said sameness is frame dependent. I wish you would say what you mean instead of being sloppy. I agree that speed is not an intrinsic property. Neither is simultaneity. > >> I thought you liked 19th century physics. > > It still reigns supreme.... 19th century physics didn't say sameness is frame independent. > >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 18:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlhen9$1vjb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387257 |
On 7/5/2016 5:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/2016 4:30 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 05/07/16 22:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/4/2016 5:49 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, but it is. >>>>> >>>>> Lots and lots of examples of this. >>>> >>>> ...but you can't actually think of any right now, eh? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Sure, I can. >>> Two billiard balls of identical mass approaching each other in the >>> center-of-mass frame. Their speeds are the same in this frame. >>> The same two balls in the rest frame of the table (only one of the balls >>> was struck by the cue), their speeds are different. >>> Sameness here is OBVIOUSLY frame dependent. >> >> Speed is not an intrinsic property...try again.... > > But you didn't say sameness of intrinsic properties is frame dependent. > You just said sameness is frame dependent. I wish you would say what you > mean instead of being sloppy. Apologies for typos > > I agree that speed is not an intrinsic property. Neither is simultaneity. > >> >>> I thought you liked 19th century physics. >> >> It still reigns supreme.... > > 19th century physics didn't say sameness is frame independent. > >> >>> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljnu3$170i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387257 |
On 06/07/16 08:48, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/2016 4:30 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 05/07/16 22:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/4/2016 5:49 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, but it is. >>>>> >>>>> Lots and lots of examples of this. >>>> >>>> ...but you can't actually think of any right now, eh? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Sure, I can. >>> Two billiard balls of identical mass approaching each other in the >>> center-of-mass frame. Their speeds are the same in this frame. >>> The same two balls in the rest frame of the table (only one of the balls >>> was struck by the cue), their speeds are different. >>> Sameness here is OBVIOUSLY frame dependent. >> >> Speed is not an intrinsic property...try again.... > > But you didn't say sameness of intrinsic properties is frame dependent. > You just said sameness is frame dependent. I wish you would say what you > mean instead of being sloppy. Bodkin, you are so ignorant of physics that you think your above statement "two approaching billiard balls have the same speed in the centre -of-mass frame" is a legitimate one. 'Speed' is not a word officially used in physics. It is just a convenient way of saying "the magnitude of the velocity vector" and is quite useful in linear situations. The VELOCITIES of the two above balls is never the same. Two objects that have the same velocity in one particular frame have the same velocity in ALL frames. > I agree that speed is not an intrinsic property. Neither is simultaneity. > >> >>> I thought you liked 19th century physics. >> >> It still reigns supreme.... > > 19th century physics didn't say sameness is frame independent. Of course it did. You seem to have made the fatal mistake of trying to understand 21st century physics without having a clue about the basics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 15:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljoid$1800$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387326 |
On 7/6/2016 2:59 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 08:48, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/2016 4:30 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 22:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/4/2016 5:49 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, but it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lots and lots of examples of this. >>>>> >>>>> ...but you can't actually think of any right now, eh? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, I can. >>>> Two billiard balls of identical mass approaching each other in the >>>> center-of-mass frame. Their speeds are the same in this frame. >>>> The same two balls in the rest frame of the table (only one of the >>>> balls >>>> was struck by the cue), their speeds are different. >>>> Sameness here is OBVIOUSLY frame dependent. >>> >>> Speed is not an intrinsic property...try again.... >> >> But you didn't say sameness of intrinsic properties is frame dependent. >> You just said sameness is frame dependent. I wish you would say what you >> mean instead of being sloppy. > > Bodkin, you are so ignorant of physics that you think your above > statement "two approaching billiard balls have the same speed in the > centre -of-mass frame" is a legitimate one. 'Speed' is not a word > officially used in physics. Of course it is! Good grief, look in a physics textbook. > It is just a convenient way of saying "the > magnitude of the velocity vector" and is quite useful in linear situations. And nonlinear situations. > The VELOCITIES of the two above balls is never the same. So? I didn't say the velocities are the same. > > Two objects that have the same velocity in one particular frame have the > same velocity in ALL frames. So? Again, your original comment was "Sameness is not frame dependent" without qualification. It wasn't restricted to "sameness of intrinsic properties". It wasn't qualified with "sameness for some variables but not sameness for other variables". It was just "Sameness is not frame dependent". If you can't say what you mean in the first place, then don't bother saying. > >> I agree that speed is not an intrinsic property. Neither is simultaneity. >> >>> >>>> I thought you liked 19th century physics. >>> >>> It still reigns supreme.... >> >> 19th century physics didn't say sameness is frame independent. > > Of course it did. No, it really didn't. Speed, by the way, was a well-defined concept for 19th century physics. Look in your 19th century physics textbooks. > You seem to have made the fatal mistake of trying to > understand 21st century physics without having a clue about the basics. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 05:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0r0q$tel$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387327 |
On 07/07/16 06:09, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 2:59 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 06/07/16 08:48, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/5/2016 4:30 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> On 05/07/16 22:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2016 5:49 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wrong again...Sameness is not frame dependent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, but it is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lots and lots of examples of this. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...but you can't actually think of any right now, eh? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure, I can. >>>>> Two billiard balls of identical mass approaching each other in the >>>>> center-of-mass frame. Their speeds are the same in this frame. >>>>> The same two balls in the rest frame of the table (only one of the >>>>> balls >>>>> was struck by the cue), their speeds are different. >>>>> Sameness here is OBVIOUSLY frame dependent. >>>> >>>> Speed is not an intrinsic property...try again.... >>> >>> But you didn't say sameness of intrinsic properties is frame dependent. >>> You just said sameness is frame dependent. I wish you would say what you >>> mean instead of being sloppy. >> >> Bodkin, you are so ignorant of physics that you think your above >> statement "two approaching billiard balls have the same speed in the >> centre -of-mass frame" is a legitimate one. 'Speed' is not a word >> officially used in physics. > > Of course it is! Good grief, look in a physics textbook. > >> It is just a convenient way of saying "the >> magnitude of the velocity vector" and is quite useful in linear >> situations. > > And nonlinear situations. > >> The VELOCITIES of the two above balls is never the same. > > So? I didn't say the velocities are the same. > >> >> Two objects that have the same velocity in one particular frame have the >> same velocity in ALL frames. > > So? > Again, your original comment was "Sameness is not frame dependent" > without qualification. It wasn't restricted to "sameness of intrinsic > properties". It wasn't qualified with "sameness for some variables but > not sameness for other variables". It was just "Sameness is not frame > dependent". > > If you can't say what you mean in the first place, then don't bother > saying. That's really funny, coming from the king of irrelevancy and stupidity himself. >> >>> I agree that speed is not an intrinsic property. Neither is >>> simultaneity. >>> >>>> >>>>> I thought you liked 19th century physics. >>>> >>>> It still reigns supreme.... >>> >>> 19th century physics didn't say sameness is frame independent. >> >> Of course it did. > > No, it really didn't. Speed, by the way, was a well-defined concept for > 19th century physics. Look in your 19th century physics textbooks. I told you it is a useful abbreviation for velocity when direction is not important. I use it all the time. >> You seem to have made the fatal mistake of trying to >> understand 21st century physics without having a clue about the basics. You goofed again, Bodkin. Accept it like a man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 23:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlb57h$l3u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387099 |
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. In the moving observer's frame and according to Einstein's P2, the transit times are L/c+/-v) and therefore different, meaning that his clock if KNOWN to advance by DIFFERENT amounts during the transits. However, if the rod clock rate is R and the moving observer's clock rate is nR then two intervals equal to x in the rod frame must both correspond to advance in the moving clock reading of nx. > Sylvia. > > [*] Or, equivalently, that each clock stops advancing when the now > distant pulse arrives at the other clock. The rod clocks start and stop when the pulses are emitted and arrive. That is understood but is not really important here. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 18:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtult2FhavU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387112 |
On 4/07/2016 4:21 PM, HGW wrote: > 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. You're asserting that they advance by the same amount in all frames. You haven't proved that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 19:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtuofvF15tsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387154 |
On 4/07/2016 6:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/07/2016 4:21 PM, HGW wrote: >> 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. > > You're asserting that they advance by the same amount in all frames. You > haven't proved that. > > Sylvia. > I think I'll expand on that. There's no disputing the amount they advance in the frame of the rod. The question is whether they do all that advancing during the transit of the pulses in the frame of the moving observer, or indeed, whether they continued to advance for the full period of the transit in the frame of the moving observer. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web