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 17 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljnid$168l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387323 |
On 7/6/2016 2:47 PM, RichD wrote: > On July 6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It was >>> merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great conspiracy. >> >> But you must admit that it is quite an achievement to >> maintain The Great Conspiracy for more than a century! > > Even older than Area 51! > (ask him about that) > >> There are only a very few uneducated geniuses like >> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge who have realized that all the experiments >> ever done are faked and are parts of The Great Conspiracy. > > I'm unsure whether he believes his ravings - I'm sure he doesn't. It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it were, he would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. > > -- > Rich > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 07:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljs7n$1e25$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387325 |
>>> But you must admit that it is quite an achievement to maintain >>> The Great Conspiracy for more than a century! >> >> Even older than Area 51! (ask him about that) >> >>> There are only a very few uneducated geniuses like Henry George >>> Wilson who have realized that all the experiments ever done are >>> faked and are parts of The Great Conspiracy. >> >> I'm unsure whether he believes his ravings - > > I'm sure he doesn't. It isn't his objective to state what he believes > is true. If it were, he would cease stating contradictory things in > consecutive posts. All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, > nothing more. On the contrary, Bodkin. I gain immense amusement and satisfaction out of watching people with no scientific background trying to emulate us real physicists. >> -- Rich >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 16:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljtvg$1gg3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387341 |
On 7/6/2016 4:12 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> I'm sure he doesn't. It isn't his objective to state what he believes >> is true. If it were, he would cease stating contradictory things in >> consecutive posts. All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, >> nothing more. > > On the contrary, Bodkin. I gain immense amusement and satisfaction out > of watching people with no scientific background trying to emulate us > real physicists. And I derive some amusement from one amateur telling another amateur, "But I am a REAL physicist, and you have no scientific background, unlike me!" Especially when the amateur's scientific background is 19th century physics, and he hasn't read a thing since then and doesn't intend to. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nloh8t$ue6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387348 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 7/6/2016 4:12 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> I'm sure he doesn't. It isn't his objective to state what he believes >>> is true. If it were, he would cease stating contradictory things in >>> consecutive posts. All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, >>> nothing more. >> >> On the contrary, Bodkin. I gain immense amusement and satisfaction out >> of watching people with no scientific background trying to emulate us >> real physicists. >And I derive some amusement from one amateur telling another amateur, >"But I am a REAL physicist, and you have no scientific background, >unlike me!" Especially when the amateur's scientific background is 19th >century physics, and he hasn't read a thing since then and doesn't >intend to. I wonder if "Henry Wilson" is or was a real scientist that Ralph aspires to be or just a randomly chosen name to hide behind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 10:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nls3lg$f71$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387325 |
On 07/07/16 05:52, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 2:47 PM, RichD wrote: >> On July 6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It was >>>> merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great conspiracy. >>> >>> But you must admit that it is quite an achievement to >>> maintain The Great Conspiracy for more than a century! >> >> Even older than Area 51! >> (ask him about that) >> >>> There are only a very few uneducated geniuses like >>> Henry George Wilson who have realized that all the experiments >>> ever done are faked and are parts of The Great Conspiracy. >> >> I'm unsure whether he believes his ravings - > > I'm sure he doesn't. > It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it were, he > would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. > All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist of logic. >> Rich >> > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 13:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dudtciFs1fiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387497 |
On 10/07/2016 10:08 AM, HGW wrote: > Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original > post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist > of logic. > OK, apparently, Henry's opting for denial in the face of an argument he can't address. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 08:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nltigo$2u6$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387497 |
On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > On 07/07/16 05:52, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 2:47 PM, RichD wrote: >>> On July 6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It was >>>>> merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great >>>>> conspiracy. >>>> >>>> But you must admit that it is quite an achievement to >>>> maintain The Great Conspiracy for more than a century! >>> >>> Even older than Area 51! >>> (ask him about that) >>> >>>> There are only a very few uneducated geniuses like >>>> Henry George Wilson who have realized that all the experiments >>>> ever done are faked and are parts of The Great Conspiracy. >>> >>> I'm unsure whether he believes his ravings - >> >> I'm sure he doesn't. >> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it were, he >> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. >> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. > > Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original > post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist > of logic. You don't help your cause this way. Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." Do you think saying so will make it happen? > >>> Rich >>> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 08:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nm3qlo$1cr5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387516 |
On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: >>> I'm sure he doesn't. >>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it were, he >>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. >>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. >> >> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original >> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist >> of logic. > > You don't help your cause this way. > > Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: > "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." > Do you think saying so will make it happen? Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the SAME time. Can you just concentrate on that instead of changing the subject in a desperate attempt to escape.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 16:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dum59aFrdhhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387665 |
On 13/07/2016 8:23 AM, HGW wrote: > On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>> I'm sure he doesn't. >>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it >>>> were, he >>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. >>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. >>> >>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original >>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist >>> of logic. >> >> You don't help your cause this way. >> >> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: >> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." >> Do you think saying so will make it happen? > > Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving > observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals > take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the > SAME time. His own clocks don't say that. Your attempts to show that they did by using simultaneous signals fell apart, so you dishonestly abandoned them. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 23:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82b7045f-8d56-4199-a7dc-6a9a35f9746e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387674 |
W dniu środa, 13 lipca 2016 08:26:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 13/07/2016 8:23 AM, HGW wrote: > > On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > > > >>>> I'm sure he doesn't. > >>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it > >>>> were, he > >>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. > >>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. > >>> > >>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original > >>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist > >>> of logic. > >> > >> You don't help your cause this way. > >> > >> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: > >> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." > >> Do you think saying so will make it happen? > > > > Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving > > observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals > > take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the > > SAME time. > > His own clocks don't say that. Yes, it does say that. Check at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21e0fbb4-07f2-4452-bc47-e9b0201e4c3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387675 |
El miércoles, 13 de julio de 2016, 2:55:42 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió:
> W dniu środa, 13 lipca 2016 08:26:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> > On 13/07/2016 8:23 AM, HGW wrote:
> > > On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> I'm sure he doesn't.
> > >>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it
> > >>>> were, he
> > >>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts.
> > >>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more.
> > >>>
> > >>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original
> > >>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist
> > >>> of logic.
> > >>
> > >> You don't help your cause this way.
> > >>
> > >> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular:
> > >> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king."
> > >> Do you think saying so will make it happen?
> > >
> > > Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving
> > > observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals
> > > take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the
> > > SAME time.
> >
> > His own clocks don't say that.
>
> Yes, it does say that. Check at GPS.
At GPS we have a SINGLE 1905 Einstein stationary system of Cartesian
coordinates (with Euclidean geometry) in which Newtonian equations hold good,
introduced by him at the end of Section 4 on his June 30 paper, today denoted
ECI.
The original 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) has the following two postulates
(literal 1905 text):
Postulate 1. [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for
all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]
Postulate 2. [ Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. Hence velocity=light path/time interval , where time interval
is to be taken in the sense of the definition in Section 1 ]
BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very successful
GPS operation since already almost four decades. With Cartesian coordinates and
Euclidean geometry, all GPS receptors are resolving every instant the following
Newtonian system of equations:
(x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2
where (x, y, z) is the position of the receptor at the same reception instant t
of signals transmitted from i different satellites (at least 4 ones) with
position (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i.
The signals have then always the same uniform velocity c, totally independent
on the satellite (or receptor) velocities in the GPS ECI stationary system. The
light velocity c is derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations holding good in the
same frame of reference where the equations of mechanics do the same (Postulate
1), being also independent on the source velocity (Postulate 2), i.e. holding
good both 1905R Postulates.
The objective (experimental) existence of the relative space and time defined
by 1905R, finds then with the GPS a direct and extraordinary huge support,
having nothing to do with the *space-time* of today SR and its symmetrical
assumed properties in flagrant contradiction with 1905R postulates.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <741e5903-e2f4-45d3-9d31-4432fa0db3c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387687 |
W dniu środa, 13 lipca 2016 15:50:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > El miércoles, 13 de julio de 2016, 2:55:42 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > > W dniu środa, 13 lipca 2016 08:26:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > On 13/07/2016 8:23 AM, HGW wrote: > > > > On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> I'm sure he doesn't. > > > >>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it > > > >>>> were, he > > > >>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. > > > >>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. > > > >>> > > > >>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original > > > >>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist > > > >>> of logic. > > > >> > > > >> You don't help your cause this way. > > > >> > > > >> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: > > > >> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." > > > >> Do you think saying so will make it happen? > > > > > > > > Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving > > > > observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals > > > > take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the > > > > SAME time. > > > > > > His own clocks don't say that. > > > > Yes, it does say that. Check at GPS. > > At GPS we have a SINGLE 1905 Einstein stationary system of Cartesian > coordinates (with Euclidean geometry) in which Newtonian equations hold good, > introduced by him at the end of Section 4 on his June 30 paper, today denoted > ECI. We have also set of clocks there, and they say times are the same. Relativists say they're unproper. Engineers and other sane people don't share this opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <934f2c36-9017-494c-b71d-77a4bb062813@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387692 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:17:09 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > We have also set of clocks there, and they say times > are the same. > Relativists say they're unproper. > Engineers and other sane people don't share this > opinion. You are seriously demented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <449fb71f-e31f-4e04-96b5-53154a2f8e81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387692 |
El miércoles, 13 de julio de 2016, 10:17:09 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu środa, 13 lipca 2016 15:50:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > > El miércoles, 13 de julio de 2016, 2:55:42 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > > > W dniu środa, 13 lipca 2016 08:26:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > On 13/07/2016 8:23 AM, HGW wrote: > > > > > On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > >> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>> I'm sure he doesn't. > > > > >>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it > > > > >>>> were, he > > > > >>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. > > > > >>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original > > > > >>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist > > > > >>> of logic. > > > > >> > > > > >> You don't help your cause this way. > > > > >> > > > > >> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: > > > > >> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." > > > > >> Do you think saying so will make it happen? > > > > > > > > > > Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving > > > > > observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals > > > > > take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the > > > > > SAME time. > > > > > > > > His own clocks don't say that. > > > > > > Yes, it does say that. Check at GPS. > > > > At GPS we have a SINGLE 1905 Einstein stationary system of Cartesian > > coordinates (with Euclidean geometry) in which Newtonian equations hold good, > > introduced by him at the end of Section 4 on his June 30 paper, today denoted > > ECI. > > We have also set of clocks there, and they say times > are the same. > Relativists say they're unproper. > Engineers and other sane people don't share this > opinion. After quoting only the first paragraph of my previous post, you are then only repeating here the last paragraph of your previous post, the unique one that I do not quote. Let us go directly to the hot point. Accept you or not my detailed deduction showing how the very successful GPS operation since already almost four decades until our days, is a HUGE experimental support for 1905 Einstein's Relativity (1905R), including its two postulates? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nm6bu4$4jr$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387720 |
Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:449fb71f-e31f-4e04-96b5-53154a2f8e81@googlegroups.com... |Let us go directly to the hot point. Accept you or not my detailed deduction |showing how the very successful GPS operation since already almost four decades |until our days, is a HUGE experimental support for 1905 Einstein's Relativity |(1905R), including its two postulates? Of course it isn't. It shows time (as defined by your guru) is galilean. Your postulates can't be hold with galilean time. You know that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 06:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37e573a2-83a3-4ccd-96e2-e9c2b3f65717@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387722 |
El miércoles, 13 de julio de 2016, 17:30:46 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak escribió:
> Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:449fb71f-e31f-4e04-96b5-53154a2f8e81@googlegroups.com...
>
> |Let us go directly to the hot point. Accept you or not my detailed
> deduction
> |showing how the very successful GPS operation since already almost four
> decades
> |until our days, is a HUGE experimental support for 1905 Einstein's
> Relativity
> |(1905R), including its two postulates?
>
> Of course it isn't.
> It shows time (as defined by your guru) is galilean. Your postulates
First at all, the postulates are 1905 Einstein's ones, not mine.
1905 Einstein defines *time* relative to a *stationary system* of Cartesian
coordinates (with Euclidean geometry) in which Newtonian equations hold good.
The GPS ECI is such a system, a Newtonian center of mass (CM) one among many
others, each one with a different CM and relative stationary space, determined
by the different bodies involved following 1686 Newton's Laws, having then also
a different relative *time* that can be used only to describe the interactions
among the bodies taking into account when determining the corresponding
relative CM.
Each different relative *stationary system* has then its different relative
space and time; no place at all here for the absolute Galilean time that you
mention.
> can't be hold with galilean time. You know that.
Yes, I know that the 1905R postulates can't be hold with absolute Galilean
time, but with relative 1905R defined *time*.
I will repeat for you my deduction.
The 1905R two postulates (literal 1905 text, June 30 paper):
Postulate 1. [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for
all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]
Postulate 2. [ Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. Hence velocity=light path/time interval , where time interval
is to be taken in the sense of the definition in Sec. 1 ]
BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very successful
GPS operation since already almost four decades. With Cartesian coordinates and
Euclidean geometry, all GPS receptors are resolving every instant the following
Newtonian system of equations:
(x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2
where (x, y, z) is the position of the receptor at the same reception instant t
of signals transmitted from i different satellites (at least 4 ones) with
position (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i.
The signals have then always the same uniform velocity c, totally independent
on the satellite (or receptor) velocities in the GPS ECI stationary system. The
light velocity c is derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations holding good in the
same frame of reference where the equations of mechanics do the same (Postulate
1), being also independent on the source velocity (Postulate 2), i.e. holding
good both 1905R Postulates.
The objective (experimental) existence of the relative space and time defined
by 1905R, finds then with the GPS a direct and extraordinary huge support,
having nothing to do with the *space-time* of today SR and its symmetrical
assumed properties in flagrant contradiction with 1905R postulates.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 08:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm5gg8$1jm4$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387665 |
On 7/12/2016 5:23 PM, HGW wrote: > On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>> I'm sure he doesn't. >>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it >>>> were, he >>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. >>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. >>> >>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original >>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist >>> of logic. >> >> You don't help your cause this way. >> >> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: >> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." >> Do you think saying so will make it happen? > > Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving > observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals > take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the > SAME time. I've given Ken Seto, in this thread, the correct Lorentz transforms. I've given him the quantities to substituted into the variables of those transforms. I've also given him the steps to calculate the transit times. That calculation IS the explanation you are asking for. So either you can do the simple 5th grade algebra or you cannot (neither can Ken). If you want to be reduced to Ken's level, who cannot for the life of him tell you what (-6)/(-2) equals or what a reference frame is, then you can punt just like he's done. > > Can you just concentrate on that instead of changing the subject in a > desperate attempt to escape. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <110afe96-15ca-41f7-a123-07591be45249@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387686 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:42:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/12/2016 5:23 PM, HGW wrote: > > On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > > > >>>> I'm sure he doesn't. > >>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it > >>>> were, he > >>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. > >>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. > >>> > >>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original > >>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist > >>> of logic. > >> > >> You don't help your cause this way. > >> > >> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: > >> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." > >> Do you think saying so will make it happen? > > > > Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving > > observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals > > take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the > > SAME time. > > I've given Ken Seto, in this thread, the correct Lorentz transforms. > I've given him the quantities to substituted into the variables of those > transforms. I've also given him the steps to calculate the transit > times. That calculation IS the explanation you are asking for. So either > you can do the simple 5th grade algebra or you cannot (neither can Ken). > If you want to be reduced to Ken's level, who cannot for the life of him > tell you what (-6)/(-2) equals or what a reference frame is, then you > can punt just like he's done. > > idiot.....you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going at different directions. That's why you get different transit times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm87dg$1d4s$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387741 |
On 7/14/2016 6:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:42:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/12/2016 5:23 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: >>> >>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't. >>>>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it >>>>>> were, he >>>>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. >>>>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. >>>>> >>>>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original >>>>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist >>>>> of logic. >>>> >>>> You don't help your cause this way. >>>> >>>> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: >>>> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." >>>> Do you think saying so will make it happen? >>> >>> Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving >>> observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals >>> take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the >>> SAME time. >> >> I've given Ken Seto, in this thread, the correct Lorentz transforms. >> I've given him the quantities to substituted into the variables of those >> transforms. I've also given him the steps to calculate the transit >> times. That calculation IS the explanation you are asking for. So either >> you can do the simple 5th grade algebra or you cannot (neither can Ken). >> If you want to be reduced to Ken's level, who cannot for the life of him >> tell you what (-6)/(-2) equals or what a reference frame is, then you >> can punt just like he's done. >> > > > idiot.....you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going at > different directions. That's why you get different transit times. Why don't you ask Henry what HE thinks the right values for the coordinates should be? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7210dee-2637-4bfb-80f7-9653059a3ce3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387755 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/14/2016 6:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:42:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/12/2016 5:23 PM, HGW wrote: > >>> On 10/07/16 23:27, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/9/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't. > >>>>>> It isn't his objective to state what he believes is true. If it > >>>>>> were, he > >>>>>> would cease stating contradictory things in consecutive posts. > >>>>>> All he's doing is trying to be a pot-stirrer, nothing more. > >>>>> > >>>>> Bodkin, you don't even know enough physics to understand my original > >>>>> post or why it knocks out Einstein's theory with one blow from the fist > >>>>> of logic. > >>>> > >>>> You don't help your cause this way. > >>>> > >>>> Might as well stand in your yard and mutter to no one in particular: > >>>> "I'm king now. King of the world. By royal decree, I am king." > >>>> Do you think saying so will make it happen? > >>> > >>> Bodkin, go back to my original post and try to explain how the moving > >>> observer can possibly support the Einsteinian claim that the signals > >>> take DIFFERENT times in his frame when his own clock says they take the > >>> SAME time. > >> > >> I've given Ken Seto, in this thread, the correct Lorentz transforms. > >> I've given him the quantities to substituted into the variables of those > >> transforms. I've also given him the steps to calculate the transit > >> times. That calculation IS the explanation you are asking for. So either > >> you can do the simple 5th grade algebra or you cannot (neither can Ken). > >> If you want to be reduced to Ken's level, who cannot for the life of him > >> tell you what (-6)/(-2) equals or what a reference frame is, then you > >> can punt just like he's done. > >> > > > > > idiot.....you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going at > > different directions. That's why you get different transit times. > > Why don't you ask Henry what HE thinks the right values for the > coordinates should be? Why would I do that....he is at the same failed level as you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web