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 18 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 Next page →
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 08:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nmbolm$mfn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387839 |
On 16/07/16 06:39, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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. Bodkin, anyone who thinks two colliding billiard balls had the same 'speed' prior to their collision is the real idiot. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed374fbf-deec-4817-a0e1-00be926dabcd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387850 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:38:50 PM UTC-7, HGW. wrote: > Bodkin, anyone who thinks two colliding billiard balls had the same > 'speed' prior to their collision is the real idiot. Depends in which frame the measurements are made...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 12:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmdrvj$179e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387850 |
On 7/15/2016 5:38 PM, HGW. wrote: > Bodkin, anyone who thinks two colliding billiard balls had the same > 'speed' prior to their collision is the real idiot. Center-of-mass frame. 19th century physics. You should eat it up. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmdss7$17te$11@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387839 |
On 7/15/2016 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > 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. > And you're going to say that all scientists are at the same failed level when it comes to how to assign coordinate values, and that you and ONLY you are the single person who understands how to properly assign coordinate values? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <617a2037-da72-4dbf-9e4e-48249d39435d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387884 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:02:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > > 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. > > > > And you're going to say that all scientists are at the same failed level > when it comes to how to assign coordinate values, and that you and ONLY > you are the single person who understands how to properly assign > coordinate values? ROTFLOL.....so you are all the scientists??????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 16:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nme9i3$1q06$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387885 |
On 7/16/2016 1:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:02:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/15/2016 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> And you're going to say that all scientists are at the same failed level >> when it comes to how to assign coordinate values, and that you and ONLY >> you are the single person who understands how to properly assign >> coordinate values? > > ROTFLOL.....so you are all the scientists?????? > I read what scientists write, and I agree with them. You don't read what scientists write, and instead you make up stuff. So, since what you say about coordinates is different than what scientists say, are you wrong or are they wrong? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 05:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8209f7df-bf8a-4dbe-8d5a-87df31f885dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387897 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:39:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/16/2016 1:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:02:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/15/2016 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> And you're going to say that all scientists are at the same failed level > >> when it comes to how to assign coordinate values, and that you and ONLY > >> you are the single person who understands how to properly assign > >> coordinate values? > > > > ROTFLOL.....so you are all the scientists?????? > > > > I read what scientists write, and I agree with them. > You don't read what scientists write, and instead you make up stuff. You don't understand what you read. I pointed out your errors.....your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the point of arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would understand that. > > So, since what you say about coordinates is different than what > scientists say, are you wrong or are they wrong? No you failed to understand what the scientists are saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86382eb5-523a-4c45-af39-f9883f7d9670@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387911 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:51:14 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the point of > arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would understand that. Seto doesn't seem to understand that coordinate systems are arbitrary. Thus a point of emission need not be 0. Anyone with a smattering of algebra (which, BTW, is not taught in the 5th grade) would be able to write down the equation for emission at x = 5m and arriving at x = 0: xp = 5 - c*t where xp is the position of the pulse at any time t. > there is no such thing as negative time Of course there is: If we set today as t = 0, then yesterday is 0 - 24 hours = -24 hours. Gee Seto is stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 16:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmg3mc$2vq$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387913 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:86382eb5-523a-4c45-af39-f9883f7d9670@googlegroups.com... On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:51:14 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the point of > arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would understand that. |Seto doesn't seem to understand that coordinate systems are arbitrary. Neither you do. Your Shit isn't the Voice of the Universe speaking. Your Shit is an arbitrary choice of a insane halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70764e36-2818-446f-b3cc-fb37e1b8c19c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387913 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:06:28 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:51:14 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the point of > > arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would understand that. > > Seto doesn't seem to understand that coordinate systems are arbitrary. Right so you guys arbitrary choose different emission coordinates for the different directions to get different transit times for the different directions is totally wrong. Gee you guys are stupid. > Thus a point of emission need not be 0. Anyone with a smattering of > algebra (which, BTW, is not taught in the 5th grade) would be able to > write down the equation for emission at x = 5m and arriving at x = 0: > > xp = 5 - c*t > > where xp is the position of the pulse at any time t. > > > there is no such thing as negative time > > Of course there is: If we set today as t = 0, then yesterday is > 0 - 24 hours = -24 hours. Gee Seto is stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2876583-b74c-4a88-b881-93581fa2f7d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387915 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:44:37 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:06:28 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:51:14 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the point of > > > arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would understand that. > > > > Seto doesn't seem to understand that coordinate systems are arbitrary. > > Right so you guys arbitrary choose different emission coordinates for the > different directions to get different transit times for the different > directions is totally wrong. Clearly and moronically wrong. Seto used DIFFERENT coordinate systems and got the SAME transit time. > Gee you guys are stupid. This seems to be a mantra of Seto's :-)) > > Thus a point of emission need not be 0. Anyone with a smattering of > > algebra (which, BTW, is not taught in the 5th grade) would be able to > > write down the equation for emission at x = 5m and arriving at x = 0: > > > > xp = 5 - c*t > > > > where xp is the position of the pulse at any time t. > > > > > there is no such thing as negative time > > > > Of course there is: If we set today as t = 0, then yesterday is > > 0 - 24 hours = -24 hours. Gee Seto is stupid No comment at all about the CRUX of the message. Typical of Idiot Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a08c984-26d1-41d0-b7b4-3fc69231cd27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387920 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:41:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:44:37 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:06:28 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:51:14 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the point of > > > > arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would understand that. > > > > > > Seto doesn't seem to understand that coordinate systems are arbitrary. > > > > Right so you guys arbitrary choose different emission coordinates for the > > different directions to get different transit times for the different > > directions is totally wrong. > > Clearly and moronically wrong. Seto used DIFFERENT coordinate systems and > got the SAME transit time. No idiot .....the same origin of the same coordinate system was used for the emission events for both directions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 18:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <784ced3f-ee0f-417e-8297-b19a43134cb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387922 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:45:49 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:41:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:44:37 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:06:28 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:51:14 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the > > > > > point of arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would > > > > > understand that. > > > > > > > > Seto doesn't seem to understand that coordinate systems are arbitrary. > > > > > > Right so you guys arbitrary choose different emission coordinates for the > > > different directions to get different transit times for the different > > > directions is totally wrong. > > > > Clearly and moronically wrong. Seto used DIFFERENT coordinate systems and > > got the SAME transit time. > > No idiot ..... Yes, idiot. You are stupider than dirt. > the same origin of the same coordinate system was used for the emission > events for both directions. No, it wasn't, abysmally-stupid fool. Your origin was at 5 m, dizzy idiot. Give it up: You are a blithering fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 04:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccb64595-9831-4234-b956-953a45283875@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387932 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 9:08:02 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:45:49 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:41:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:44:37 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:06:28 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:51:14 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the > > > > > > point of arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would > > > > > > understand that. > > > > > > > > > > Seto doesn't seem to understand that coordinate systems are arbitrary. > > > > > > > > Right so you guys arbitrary choose different emission coordinates for the > > > > different directions to get different transit times for the different > > > > directions is totally wrong. > > > > > > Clearly and moronically wrong. Seto used DIFFERENT coordinate systems and > > > got the SAME transit time. > > > > No idiot ..... > > Yes, idiot. You are stupider than dirt. > > > the same origin of the same coordinate system was used for the emission > > events for both directions. > > No, it wasn't, abysmally-stupid fool. Your origin was at 5 m, dizzy idiot. > Give it up: You are a blithering fool. you are a fucking moron.....the marking on the rod is irrelevant, you flip the rod over to the negative side and start from zero again. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 06:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmig0u$17od$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387953 |
On 7/18/2016 6:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 9:08:02 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:45:49 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:41:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:44:37 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:06:28 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:51:14 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> your point of emission should be 0 for both directions and the >>>>>>> point of arrival should be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would >>>>>>> understand that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Seto doesn't seem to understand that coordinate systems are arbitrary. >>>>> >>>>> Right so you guys arbitrary choose different emission coordinates for the >>>>> different directions to get different transit times for the different >>>>> directions is totally wrong. >>>> >>>> Clearly and moronically wrong. Seto used DIFFERENT coordinate systems and >>>> got the SAME transit time. >>> >>> No idiot ..... >> >> Yes, idiot. You are stupider than dirt. >> >>> the same origin of the same coordinate system was used for the emission >>> events for both directions. >> >> No, it wasn't, abysmally-stupid fool. Your origin was at 5 m, dizzy idiot. >> Give it up: You are a blithering fool. > > you are a fucking moron.....the marking on the rod is irrelevant, you flip the > rod over to the negative side and start from zero again. Gee you are so fucking stupid. LOL. You think rods are all marked in opposite directions on opposite sides? Who said anything about that? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 15:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgq4u$tee$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387911 |
On 7/17/2016 7:51 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > I read what scientists write, and I agree with them. >> > You don't read what scientists write, and instead you make up stuff. > You don't understand what you read. I pointed out your errors.....your point of > emission should be 0 for both directions and the point of arrival should > be +5m and -5m. A 5th grader would understand that. > >> > >> > So, since what you say about coordinates is different than what >> > scientists say, are you wrong or are they wrong? > No you failed to understand what the scientists are saying. Gee, it's pretty plain in their writings. Rod with left end at origin and of length L, lined up along the x-axis. Position of left end is at x=0, position of right end is at +L. This is independent of whether what's moving is going from right to left or from left to right. This is DIRECT from a worked example in basic physics books. So you're saying they're all wrong and you're right? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlb9f3$b6t$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387054 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 01/07/16 04:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>>> No, I am not an aetherist, but a follower of 1905 Einstein, >>>> precisely the one who declared superfluous the "luminiferous >>>> ether"; he also defines the time of a *stationary system* of >>>> coordinates (related with bodies) in which Newtonian equations >>>> hold good, being it possible to synchronize two clocks in more >>>> than one such a system. >>> >>> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. He stole >>> the idea from Poincare, who had already formulated the theory that >>> Einstein became famous for. In reality, it is NOT superfluous in >>> either theory because it alone provides the mechanism for the >>> source independence condition of Einstein's second postulate. >>> Without the 'superfluous aether', Einstein's second postulate has >>> no validity. >>> >> You are distorting completely the historical facts. The following are >> literal 1905 Einstein's words (almost at the end of the Introduction >> of his June 30 first Relativity paper) [ ]: >> >> [ The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be >> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not >> require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special >> properties, nor assign a velocity- vector to a point of the empty >> space in which electromagnetic processes take place. ] >> >> As you can see, 1905 Einstein is the FIRST deriving superfluous the >> ether from his new 1905R theory (neither Poincare nor Lorentz has >> something similar previous to him, they never rejected the ether; >Nor did Einstein!!!! can you see the words 'in as much as......' in >your quote? >He did not need to mention it because its role was solely to unify all >light speeds from differently moving sources. Einstein merely assumed >its existence by including source independence as part of his postulate. Ralph, what language are you using? I thought down under the language you use, although bizarre, was still considered to be English? How do you get "Einstein never rejected the ether" when he said explicitly stated that it was superfluous Especially when you write stuff like: >>The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'. >How else can there be source independence? Simple. Length contraction and time dilation happen by the same amount so the ratio remains c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 11:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6-ydnbAYTInh3eTKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #387114 |
On 7/3/16 7/3/16 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> How else can there be source independence? > > Simple. Length contraction and time dilation happen by the same amount > so the ratio remains c. That is indeed a simple answer. It is also FLAT-OUT WRONG. Consider observer A making a speed-of-light measurement in vacuum along a straight path of length L. A measures the time-of-flight to be T, and of course L/T = c. Consider what observer B, moving relative to A along the path, would calculate by simply applying "time dilation" and "length contraction" (as your claim implies). B measures the length that A used to be L/gamma. Due to "time dilation", B measures A's clock to tick slower by a factor of 1/gamma, so to B the time interval that A measured is T*gamma. So in this EXCESSIVELY NAIVE calculation, B obtains the "speed" to be c/gamma^2. The aspect of SR that you are missing is the relativity of simultaneity -- A must start the time-of-flight clock SIMULTANEOUSLY with the emission of the light, and of course applies "simultaneously" in her own frame. But to B those are NOT simultaneous events, and B cannot make a valid measurement of speed as described in the previous paragraph. B _MUST_ use simultaneity in his own frame and ensure the time interval measured is the flight time IN HIS OWN FRAME. So B must start his own clock ticking simultaneously IN HIS OWN FRAME with the light being emitted, and he must also measure the length of the light path IN HIS OWN FRAME. Then he will get a valid measurement of the speed of light, and will obtain c. In SR we _KNOW_ they both obtain c for the vacuum speed of light. We also _KNOW_ they must use different pairs of events if the measurement is to be the path length divided by the flight time. Relativity is both complicated and subtle. Simplistic and incorrect "explanations" do not do anybody any good. You MUST use the theory itself, and not mistaken notions. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 06:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7038cee-2914-431c-aa7f-56c6c81f53a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387116 |
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:42:43 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/3/16 7/3/16 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> How else can there be source independence? > > > > Simple. Length contraction and time dilation happen by the same amount > > so the ratio remains c. > > That is indeed a simple answer. It is also FLAT-OUT WRONG. > > Consider observer A making a speed-of-light measurement in vacuum along a > straight path of length L. A measures the time-of-flight to be T, and of course > L/T = c. > > Consider what observer B, moving relative to A along the path, would calculate > by simply applying "time dilation" and "length contraction" (as your claim > implies). B measures the length that A used to be L/gamma. Due to "time > dilation", B measures A's clock to tick slower by a factor of 1/gamma, so to B > the time interval that A measured is T*gamma. So in this EXCESSIVELY NAIVE > calculation, B obtains the "speed" to be c/gamma^2. > > The aspect of SR that you are missing is the relativity of simultaneity -- A > must start the time-of-flight clock SIMULTANEOUSLY with the emission of the > light, and of course applies "simultaneously" in her own frame. But to B those > are NOT simultaneous events, and B cannot make a valid measurement of speed as > described in the previous paragraph. B _MUST_ use simultaneity in his own frame > and ensure the time interval measured is the flight time IN HIS OWN FRAME. So B > must start his own clock ticking simultaneously IN HIS OWN FRAME with the light > being emitted, and he must also measure the length of the light path IN HIS OWN > FRAME. Then he will get a valid measurement of the speed of light, and will > obtain c. No need to invoke the bogus concept of RoS. The clocks in the rod frame are synched and the observers at both ends agree that the time of emission Te and they each will read the time of arrival Ta. The transit time T_t is calculated as follows: T_t=Ta-Te. For the observer moving wrt the rod....he uses the delta form of the LT to calculate the transit time in both directions and the result is the same in both in both directions. > > In SR we _KNOW_ they both obtain c for the vacuum speed of light. > We also _KNOW_ they must use different pairs of events if the > measurement is to be the path length divided by the flight time. > > Relativity is both complicated and subtle. Simplistic and incorrect > "explanations" do not do anybody any good. You MUST use the theory itself, and > not mistaken notions. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 09:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlc6oh$7eh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387114 |
On 04/07/16 01:02, Michael Moron-y wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >>> As you can see, 1905 Einstein is the FIRST deriving superfluous the >>> ether from his new 1905R theory (neither Poincare nor Lorentz has >>> something similar previous to him, they never rejected the ether; > >> Nor did Einstein!!!! can you see the words 'in as much as......' in >> your quote? > >> He did not need to mention it because its role was solely to unify all >> light speeds from differently moving sources. Einstein merely assumed >> its existence by including source independence as part of his postulate. > > Henry, what language are you using? I thought down under the language you > use, although bizarre, was still considered to be English? > > How do you get "Einstein never rejected the ether" when he said explicitly > stated that it was superfluous Moron- Being intellectually inferior should not prevent you from trying to use what little intelligence you have. Einstein assumed the absolute aether existed and provided the mechanism that unified all light speeds from differently moving sources...but because of the LTs, and after Poincare's findings, he realized that it could be replaced by a postulate and not mentioned again. > Especially when you write stuff like: > >>> The point is, 'Same' cannot mean 'Different'. > >> How else can there be source independence? > > Simple. Length contraction and time dilation happen by the same amount > so the ratio remains c. Fool! That only accounts for the OBSERVER independence of all light that has already been unified. Note, Tom has claimed that your oversimplified but partially correct statement is wrong. His explanation actually says the same thing but in a different way. That is all part of the conspiracy to hide the fact that Einstein's theory is no different from those of Lorentz and Poincare, all three of which are completely wrong anyway. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web