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 15 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 19 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 11:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nle1fs$tou$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387067 |
On 7/1/2016 4:24 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/1/2016 11:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>>>> The LT predicts: >>>>>>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. >>>>> >>>>> Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? >>>> >>>> No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR >>>> assertions. >>>> >>>>> What equation the >>>>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. >>>> >>>> These ones: >>>> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) >>>> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) >>>> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. >>> >>> These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the >>> rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? >> >> Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. >> In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating >> from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: >> x_emission = 0 >> x_arrival = L >> t_emission = 0 >> t_arrival = L/c >> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what >> t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. >> Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from >> the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do >> that algebra too. >> >> For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left >> end, here are your paramaters: >> x_emission = L >> x_arrival = 0 >> t_emission = 0 >> t_arrival = L/c >> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what >> t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the >> difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the >> algebra. > > ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 from left to right. > That means that you already assumed that the transit time in the opposite directions are different. No, it doesn't mean that. x_emission is the *location* of the emission. The rod is of length L, and so the left side of the rod is at x=0 and the right side of the rod is at x=L. So if the pulse is going from left to right from one end to the other, this means it goes from x=0 to x=L. This means it is emitted at x=0 and arrives at x=L. In other words, x_emission=0 and x_arrival=L. Likewise if the pulse is going from right to left from one end to the other, this means it goes from x=L to x=0. This means it is emitted at x=L and arrives at x=0. In other words, x_emission=L and x_arrival=0. These are all values in the rod's rest frame. I've explained this as simply as I can, in a way understandable to 5th graders. If you do not understand it, then you've no business claiming to do physics. > That means that your argument is based on bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what > the rod frame measures. > > >> >>> >>> My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0. >> >> That is not how you use the equations. But maybe you don't know how to >> plug values into equations and do algebra. > > That's exactly how you use the Delta form of the LT. It makes no bogus assumption that the > direction of light travel will affect the transit time. When Delta(x) equal to zero you are > comparing transit time in both direction without bogus assumptions. Sorry, Ken, but that is not what the delta form of the LT says at all. > > > >> >>> ...the same >>> equation is used to predict the transit time in both directions. My equation agree with what the >>> rod frame measures that the speed of light is isotropic. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> That equation only >>>>>> applies for the time between two events that happen at the same >>>>>> location. >>>>> >>>>> There is no transit time needed if the events happen at the same location. >>>> >>>> That's not true, Ken. Please pay attention. >>>> The correct equations are given above. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The two events are the emission and arrival of the light >>>>>> signal, and in neither of the frames considered here do the events occur >>>>>> in the same place. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't know know the conditions under which a relativistic >>>>>> equations apply, then you shouldn't try to use them. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have this weird expectation that if there is symmetry in the rest >>>>>>>>>> frame, then this symmetry should persist in any other frame, when in >>>>>>>>>> fact the symmetry is obvious broken in any other frame. Duh. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You might also try using bullets instead of light signals.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50c401e6-0b17-4af7-9916-6cfd5dbf4a1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387155 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/1/2016 4:24 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/1/2016 11:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> The LT predicts: > >>>>>>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? > >>>> > >>>> No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR > >>>> assertions. > >>>> > >>>>> What equation the > >>>>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. > >>>> > >>>> These ones: > >>>> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) > >>>> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) > >>>> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. > >>> > >>> These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the > >>> rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? > >> > >> Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. > >> In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating > >> from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: > >> x_emission = 0 > >> x_arrival = L > >> t_emission = 0 > >> t_arrival = L/c > >> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > >> t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. > >> Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from > >> the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do > >> that algebra too. > >> > >> For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left > >> end, here are your paramaters: > >> x_emission = L > >> x_arrival = 0 > >> t_emission = 0 > >> t_arrival = L/c > >> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > >> t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the > >> difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the > >> algebra. > > > > ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 from left to right. > > That means that you already assumed that the transit time in the opposite directions are different. > > No, it doesn't mean that. x_emission is the *location* of the emission. > The rod is of length L, and so the left side of the rod is at x=0 and > the right side of the rod is at x=L. > So if the pulse is going from left to right from one end to the other, > this means it goes from x=0 to x=L. This means it is emitted at x=0 and > arrives at x=L. In other words, x_emission=0 and x_arrival=L. > Likewise if the pulse is going from right to left from one end to the > other, this means it goes from x=L to x=0. This means it is emitted at > x=L and arrives at x=0. In other words, x_emission=L and x_arrival=0. > These are all values in the rod's rest frame. But you apply a (-) sign for L from right to left and that's why you get different transit time for the two different directions. The problem is: you don't understand that using coordinate system to predict different transit times in different directions do not agree with what the rod observer's measurements. > > I've explained this as simply as I can, in a way understandable to 5th > graders. If you do not understand it, then you've no business claiming > to do physics. > > > > That means that your argument is based on bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what > > the rod frame measures. > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0. > >> > >> That is not how you use the equations. But maybe you don't know how to > >> plug values into equations and do algebra. > > > > That's exactly how you use the Delta form of the LT. It makes no bogus assumption that the > > direction of light travel will affect the transit time. When Delta(x) equal to zero you are > > comparing transit time in both direction without bogus assumptions. > > Sorry, Ken, but that is not what the delta form of the LT says at all. Sure that's exactly what the delta form of the LT says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nle8b1$19k4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387192 |
On 7/4/2016 12:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/1/2016 4:24 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/1/2016 11:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> The LT predicts: >>>>>>>>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR >>>>>> assertions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What equation the >>>>>>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. >>>>>> >>>>>> These ones: >>>>>> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) >>>>>> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) >>>>>> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. >>>>> >>>>> These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the >>>>> rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? >>>> >>>> Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. >>>> In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating >>>> from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: >>>> x_emission = 0 >>>> x_arrival = L >>>> t_emission = 0 >>>> t_arrival = L/c >>>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what >>>> t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. >>>> Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from >>>> the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do >>>> that algebra too. >>>> >>>> For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left >>>> end, here are your paramaters: >>>> x_emission = L >>>> x_arrival = 0 >>>> t_emission = 0 >>>> t_arrival = L/c >>>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what >>>> t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the >>>> difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the >>>> algebra. >>> >>> ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 from left to right. >>> That means that you already assumed that the transit time in the opposite directions are different. >> >> No, it doesn't mean that. x_emission is the *location* of the emission. >> The rod is of length L, and so the left side of the rod is at x=0 and >> the right side of the rod is at x=L. >> So if the pulse is going from left to right from one end to the other, >> this means it goes from x=0 to x=L. This means it is emitted at x=0 and >> arrives at x=L. In other words, x_emission=0 and x_arrival=L. >> Likewise if the pulse is going from right to left from one end to the >> other, this means it goes from x=L to x=0. This means it is emitted at >> x=L and arrives at x=0. In other words, x_emission=L and x_arrival=0. >> These are all values in the rod's rest frame. > > But you apply a (-) sign for L from right to left and that's why you get > different transit time for the two different directions. I do not apply any different signs for L to R or R to L. It's the same sign, same equation. What I've given you are the CORRECT Lorentz transforms and the CORRECT variables to plug into those equations. Either you know how to do the algebra from that point to compute the difference in the traversal times in the primed frame, or you don't. Do you know how to substitute the variable in the equation and then solve, or don't you? > The problem is: > you don't understand that using coordinate system to predict different > transit times in different directions do not agree with what the rod > observer's measurements. Of course they don't agree. The calculations are for the primed frame, which is not the rod observer's frame. Nor do the transit times HAVE to agree. That's the point of relativity. Nor do the rod observer's results take priority. That is ALSO the point of relativity -- that no observer's results take priority. > >> >> I've explained this as simply as I can, in a way understandable to 5th >> graders. If you do not understand it, then you've no business claiming >> to do physics. >> >> >>> That means that your argument is based on bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what >>> the rod frame measures. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0. >>>> >>>> That is not how you use the equations. But maybe you don't know how to >>>> plug values into equations and do algebra. >>> >>> That's exactly how you use the Delta form of the LT. It makes no bogus assumption that the >>> direction of light travel will affect the transit time. When Delta(x) equal to zero you are >>> comparing transit time in both direction without bogus assumptions. >> >> Sorry, Ken, but that is not what the delta form of the LT says at all. > > Sure that's exactly what the delta form of the LT says. > Sorry, Ken, but that's not what BOOKS say about what the delta form of the LT says. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33c6427f-12db-4aba-814f-f9ead2821e3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387197 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:02:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/4/2016 12:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/1/2016 4:24 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/1/2016 11:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> The LT predicts: > >>>>>>>>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR > >>>>>> assertions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> What equation the > >>>>>>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> These ones: > >>>>>> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) > >>>>>> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) > >>>>>> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. > >>>>> > >>>>> These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the > >>>>> rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. > >>>> In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating > >>>> from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: > >>>> x_emission = 0 > >>>> x_arrival = L > >>>> t_emission = 0 > >>>> t_arrival = L/c > >>>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > >>>> t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. > >>>> Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from > >>>> the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do > >>>> that algebra too. > >>>> > >>>> For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left > >>>> end, here are your paramaters: > >>>> x_emission = L > >>>> x_arrival = 0 > >>>> t_emission = 0 > >>>> t_arrival = L/c > >>>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what > >>>> t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the > >>>> difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the > >>>> algebra. > >>> > >>> ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 from left to right. > >>> That means that you already assumed that the transit time in the opposite directions are different. > >> > >> No, it doesn't mean that. x_emission is the *location* of the emission. > >> The rod is of length L, and so the left side of the rod is at x=0 and > >> the right side of the rod is at x=L. > >> So if the pulse is going from left to right from one end to the other, > >> this means it goes from x=0 to x=L. This means it is emitted at x=0 and > >> arrives at x=L. In other words, x_emission=0 and x_arrival=L. > >> Likewise if the pulse is going from right to left from one end to the > >> other, this means it goes from x=L to x=0. This means it is emitted at > >> x=L and arrives at x=0. In other words, x_emission=L and x_arrival=0. > >> These are all values in the rod's rest frame. > > > > But you apply a (-) sign for L from right to left and that's why you get > > different transit time for the two different directions. > > I do not apply any different signs for L to R or R to L. It's the same > sign, same equation. In that case how do you get two different times for the opposite directions? Same equation will give same transit time for both directions. > What I've given you are the CORRECT Lorentz > transforms and the CORRECT variables to plug into those equations. > Either you know how to do the algebra from that point to compute the > difference in the traversal times in the primed frame, or you don't. > > Do you know how to substitute the variable in the equation and then > solve, or don't you? > > > The problem is: > > you don't understand that using coordinate system to predict different > > transit times in different directions do not agree with what the rod > > observer's measurements. > > Of course they don't agree. The calculations are for the primed frame, > which is not the rod observer's frame. But you said that the same equations is used for both direction.....so how do you get two different answers for transit time? > Nor do the transit times HAVE to agree. They have to agree unless you make the bogus assumption that the direction of relative motion will affect the transit time for light....this will violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. >That's the point of relativity. > Nor do the rod observer's results take priority. That is ALSO the point > of relativity -- that no observer's results take priority. Measurement by the rod observer takes priority.....no exception. > > > > >> > >> I've explained this as simply as I can, in a way understandable to 5th > >> graders. If you do not understand it, then you've no business claiming > >> to do physics. > >> > >> > >>> That means that your argument is based on bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what > >>> the rod frame measures. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0. > >>>> > >>>> That is not how you use the equations. But maybe you don't know how to > >>>> plug values into equations and do algebra. > >>> > >>> That's exactly how you use the Delta form of the LT. It makes no bogus assumption that the > >>> direction of light travel will affect the transit time. When Delta(x) equal to zero you are > >>> comparing transit time in both direction without bogus assumptions. > >> > >> Sorry, Ken, but that is not what the delta form of the LT says at all. > > > > Sure that's exactly what the delta form of the LT says. > > > > Sorry, Ken, but that's not what BOOKS say about what the delta form of > the LT says. The book is dead wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 07:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlg9ff$51d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387201 |
On 7/4/2016 3:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:02:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/4/2016 12:40 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/1/2016 4:24 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/1/2016 11:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:31:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/30/2016 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The LT predicts: >>>>>>>>>>> Delta(t)=L/c*gamma for both directions. Duh. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. That equation doesn't apply here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why not?.....because it doesn't agree with your assertion? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, because relativity and the Lorentz transform doesn't agree with YOUR >>>>>>>> assertions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What equation the >>>>>>>>> outside observer should use to predict the transit time in the rod frame in both directions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These ones: >>>>>>>> t_emission' = gamma(t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2) >>>>>>>> t_arrival' = gamma(t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2) >>>>>>>> You will note these are the Lorentz transformation equations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These equations don't show the different transit times for light to traverse the length of the >>>>>>> rod in different directions as claimed by you and (SR). So what is your answer? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, they do. Good grief, you are dense. >>>>>> In the rest frame of the rod of length L, for the signal originating >>>>>> from the left end and arriving at the right end, here are your parameters: >>>>>> x_emission = 0 >>>>>> x_arrival = L >>>>>> t_emission = 0 >>>>>> t_arrival = L/c >>>>>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what >>>>>> t_emission' is and what t_arrival' is. I assume you can do this algebra. >>>>>> Then the time of transit in the primed frame for the signal going from >>>>>> the left to the right is (t_arrival' - t_emission'). I assume you can do >>>>>> that algebra too. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the signal originating from the right end and arriving at the left >>>>>> end, here are your paramaters: >>>>>> x_emission = L >>>>>> x_arrival = 0 >>>>>> t_emission = 0 >>>>>> t_arrival = L/c >>>>>> Now you can plug these into the two equations above to find out what >>>>>> t_emission' and t_arrival' are. Again the time of transit is the >>>>>> difference between these two numbers, and again, I assume you can do the >>>>>> algebra. >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLOL.....you assumed that x_emmission=L from right to left and x_emmission=0 from left to right. >>>>> That means that you already assumed that the transit time in the opposite directions are different. >>>> >>>> No, it doesn't mean that. x_emission is the *location* of the emission. >>>> The rod is of length L, and so the left side of the rod is at x=0 and >>>> the right side of the rod is at x=L. >>>> So if the pulse is going from left to right from one end to the other, >>>> this means it goes from x=0 to x=L. This means it is emitted at x=0 and >>>> arrives at x=L. In other words, x_emission=0 and x_arrival=L. >>>> Likewise if the pulse is going from right to left from one end to the >>>> other, this means it goes from x=L to x=0. This means it is emitted at >>>> x=L and arrives at x=0. In other words, x_emission=L and x_arrival=0. >>>> These are all values in the rod's rest frame. >>> >>> But you apply a (-) sign for L from right to left and that's why you get >>> different transit time for the two different directions. >> >> I do not apply any different signs for L to R or R to L. It's the same >> sign, same equation. > > In that case how do you get two different times for the opposite directions? > Same equation will give same transit time for both directions. No, it will not. Substitute the variables into the equation as I indicated and do the algebra. You'll see that the same equations give two different answers. Just do it, you'll see. > >> What I've given you are the CORRECT Lorentz >> transforms and the CORRECT variables to plug into those equations. >> Either you know how to do the algebra from that point to compute the >> difference in the traversal times in the primed frame, or you don't. >> >> Do you know how to substitute the variable in the equation and then >> solve, or don't you? >> >>> The problem is: >>> you don't understand that using coordinate system to predict different >>> transit times in different directions do not agree with what the rod >>> observer's measurements. >> >> Of course they don't agree. The calculations are for the primed frame, >> which is not the rod observer's frame. > > But you said that the same equations is used for both direction.....so > how do you get two different answers for transit time? Try it. > >> Nor do the transit times HAVE to agree. > > They have to agree unless you make the bogus assumption that the direction of > relative motion will affect the transit time for light....this will violate the > isotropy of the speed of light in the rod frame. Nope, the isotropy is still there in the rod frame. > >> That's the point of relativity. >> Nor do the rod observer's results take priority. That is ALSO the point >> of relativity -- that no observer's results take priority. > > Measurement by the rod observer takes priority.....no exception. Sorry, but that's just not true, Ken, and it's the whole point of both classical physics and relativity -- no frame takes priority over another frame. >> >>> >>>> >>>> I've explained this as simply as I can, in a way understandable to 5th >>>> graders. If you do not understand it, then you've no business claiming >>>> to do physics. >>>> >>>> >>>>> That means that your argument is based on bogus assumptions......no wonder it disagree with what >>>>> the rod frame measures. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My equation also the LT....they are designed to predict the transit time when x=0. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not how you use the equations. But maybe you don't know how to >>>>>> plug values into equations and do algebra. >>>>> >>>>> That's exactly how you use the Delta form of the LT. It makes no bogus assumption that the >>>>> direction of light travel will affect the transit time. When Delta(x) equal to zero you are >>>>> comparing transit time in both direction without bogus assumptions. >>>> >>>> Sorry, Ken, but that is not what the delta form of the LT says at all. >>> >>> Sure that's exactly what the delta form of the LT says. >>> >> >> Sorry, Ken, but that's not what BOOKS say about what the delta form of >> the LT says. > > The book is dead wrong. LOL. So you're saying that you have the only correct understanding of what the Lorentz transform says and that ALL THE BOOKS about the Lorentz transform are dead wrong? Really, Ken? You want to say that? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eca9b0e0-2737-488c-a671-8cc0baf322b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386840 |
El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 16:44:24 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 29/06/16 02:17, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 6:21:37 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > >> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. > >> > >> C1_________L__________C2 > >> > > What time and space are you talking about? Perhaps you are considering the rod > > and the clocks at the absolute 1686 Newtonian rest, showing the clocks the > > corresponding absolute time? > > > > Without specifying an initial context, all what you say mean absolutely nothing. > > I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There > can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals > should take different times to transit the rod. > 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. As you are the one starting this thread, you MUST specify from the beginning the context you are assuming to talk about space and time. Perhaps you are considering the rod and the clocks at rest in some 1905 Einstein's stationary system? Are the clocks synchronized in that system or in another one? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 06:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl19c1$1fem$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386899 |
On 30/06/16 01:52, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 16:44:24 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: >> On 29/06/16 02:17, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 6:21:37 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: >>>> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. >>>> >>>> C1_________L__________C2 >>>> >>> What time and space are you talking about? Perhaps you are considering the rod >>> and the clocks at the absolute 1686 Newtonian rest, showing the clocks the >>> corresponding absolute time? >>> >>> Without specifying an initial context, all what you say mean absolutely nothing. >> >> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There >> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals >> should take different times to transit the rod. >> > 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. > As you are the one starting this thread, you MUST specify from the beginning > the context you are assuming to talk about space and time. Perhaps you are > considering the rod and the clocks at rest in some 1905 Einstein's stationary > system? Are the clocks synchronized in that system or in another one? In true relativity, there are no moving or stationary systems. There is relative movement only. SR is nothing but LET in disguise....and there is no absolute aether. TIME is in no way related to movement. How could it be when speed has dimensions L/T? Do you really believe that the statement T = fn(L/T) is mathematically acceptable. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)...totally brainwashed...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 15:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1akp$1he7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386918 |
On 6/29/2016 3:00 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 07:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl1das$1l7h$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386920 |
On 30/06/16 06:21, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 3:00 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> >> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. > > > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html He merely repeated in English what he plagiarized in French.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 16:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1edh$1mt5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386931 |
On 6/29/2016 4:07 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/06/16 06:21, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 3:00 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >>> >>> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. >> >> >> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > He merely repeated in English what he plagiarized in French. > Whether you brand it as "repeated" or "plagiarized" or "'declared'", the problem seems to be the conflict between "did" and "did not". Deflection is the first chisel picked up by the liar. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 04:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl26f7$ett$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386918 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. He most certainly did, Ralph! From: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "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."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 20:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl2tlb$1g22$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386956 |
On 30/06/16 14:16, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. > > He most certainly did, Ralph! From: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > "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." The argument is over the word declare. Einstein used the word but the aether had already been found to be superfluous by Poincare and Lorentz. It is not legitimate to declare something that has already been declared. In science, that is called plagiarism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 08:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl369u$8in$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386962 |
On 6/30/2016 5:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/06/16 14:16, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. >> >> He most certainly did, Ralph! From: >> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >> "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." > > The argument is over the word declare. Einstein used the word but the > aether had already been found to be superfluous by Poincare and Lorentz. Where did Lorentz find the aether to be superfluous? What do you think Lorentz aether theory means? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory I think you're as prone to inventing history as you are in inventing what I say about runners on train depot platforms being inside the train. > > It is not legitimate to declare something that has already been > declared. In science, that is called plagiarism. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 14:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl4q0k$1k9s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386974 |
On 30/06/16 23:19, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/30/2016 5:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> The argument is over the word declare. Einstein used the word but >> the aether had already been found to be superfluous by Poincare and >> Lorentz. > > Where did Lorentz find the aether to be superfluous? What do you > think Lorentz aether theory means? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > I think you're as prone to inventing history as you are in inventing > what I say about runners on train depot platforms being inside the > train. Idiot! You wrote it! >> It is not legitimate to declare something that has already been >> declared. In science, that is called plagiarism. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlbrn9$5mh$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386962 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 30/06/16 14:16, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. >> >> He most certainly did, Ralph! From: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >> "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." >The argument is over the word declare. Einstein used the word but the >aether had already been found to be superfluous by Poincare and Lorentz. So what? At the time many scientists believed in aether and others did not. By declaring aether superfluous, he is stating that his work does not depend on any aether. >It is not legitimate to declare something thathas already been >declared. Sure it is. I can declare the sky is blue even if I am not the person who discovered the sky is blue. By declaring that, I am stating I firmly believe that, and perhaps statements I make depend on the idea that the sky is blue. > In science, that is called plagiarism. True if he used a proof that there was no aether without proper attribution, but at the time, some scientists believed in aether and some didn't. Declaring aether was superfluous just places him sort of in the non-believer category, but in reality Einstein simply stated he had no use for aether (and said so), not that his paper proved the aether did not exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 09:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlc701$7lq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387136 |
On 04/07/16 06:14, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >> On 30/06/16 14:16, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> >>>> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. >>> >>> He most certainly did, Ralph! From: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >>> "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." > >> The argument is over the word declare. Einstein used the word but the >> aether had already been found to be superfluous by Poincare and Lorentz. > > So what? At the time many scientists believed in aether and others did > not. By declaring aether superfluous, he is stating that his work does > not depend on any aether. The existence of the aether is assumed in his second postulate. It alone accounts for the source independence bit. >> It is not legitimate to declare something thathas already been >> declared. > > Sure it is. I can declare the sky is blue even if I am not the person who > discovered the sky is blue. By declaring that, I am stating I firmly > believe that, and perhaps statements I make depend on the idea that the > sky is blue. > >> In science, that is called plagiarism. > > True if he used a proof that there was no aether without proper > attribution, but at the time, some scientists believed in aether and some > didn't. Declaring aether was superfluous just places him sort of in the > non-believer category, but in reality Einstein simply stated he had no use > for aether (and said so), not that his paper proved the aether did not > exist. That is correct. His unproven postulate did everything the aether was required to do...so he had no reason to refer to it at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 02:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlcjd6$9s9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387143 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 04/07/16 06:14, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> On 30/06/16 14:16, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>>> >>>>> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. >>>> >>>> He most certainly did, Ralph! From: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >>>> "The introduction of a .luminiferous ether. will prove to be superfluous >>>> inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an .absolutely >>>> stationary space. provided with special properties, nor assign a >>>> velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic >>>> processes take place." >> >>> The argument is over the word declare. Einstein used the word but the >>> aether had already been found to be superfluous by Poincare and Lorentz. >> >> So what? At the time many scientists believed in aether and others did >> not. By declaring aether superfluous, he is stating that his work does >> not depend on any aether. >The existence of the aether is assumed in his second postulate. No, it is not. There is no word "because" in his statement of the Second Postulate: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." Similarly, if I use a postulate "The sky is blue" in a paper, it does not assume there is a giant blue bowl placed over the earth that makes the sky blue. That would be one way for the sky to be blue, but the statement "The sky is blue" does not assume the giant bowl exists or doesn't exist. The statement "The speed of light in a vacuum is always c regardless of the motion of the emitter" does not assume an ether exists or doesn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nle4ns$ag6$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387147 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 04/07/16 12:58, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> The existence of the aether is assumed in his second postulate. >> >> No, it is not. There is no word "because" in his statement of the Second >> Postulate: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite >> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting >> body." >That merely shows how little Einstein knew about physics. He didn't >think he had to specify a reference frame for light speed because >everybody knew it was the aether. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that is incorrect, Ralph. Ralph, Einstein stated the reference frame was the observer's, and that all observers will measure the speed of light as c, Ralph. >All speeds need a reference. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, the reference is that of the observer, Ralph. > Either Einstein was completely ignorant or >he believed in a light carrying medium...like just about everyone else >did at the time. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, one of the major breakthroughs of SR was that it did NOT need any reference of any light carrying medium, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that he went against what just about everyone else was thinking, Ralph, is what set his theory apart from all others, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 09:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nleqro$8mn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387172 |
On 05/07/16 03:00, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> No, it is not. There is no word "because" in his statement of the Second >>> Postulate: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite >>> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting >>> body." > >> That merely shows how little Einstein knew about physics. He didn't >> think he had to specify a reference frame for light speed because >> everybody knew it was the aether. > > Henry George Wilson, that is incorrect, Einstein stated > the reference frame was the observer's, and that all observers will > measure the speed of light as c, Henry. > >> All speeds need a reference. > > Henry George Wilson, the reference is that of the observer, Henry. Einstein didn't mention any observers. He said 'empty space' was the reference. >> Either Einstein was completely ignorant or >> he believed in a light carrying medium...like just about everyone else >> did at the time. > > Henry George Wilson, one of the major breakthroughs of SR was that > it did NOT need any reference of any light carrying medium. > Henry George Wilson, that he went against what just about everyone > else was thinking, is what set his theory apart from all others, > Henry George Wilson. Hey moron-y, two differently moving identical rods, L, are adjacent and parallel somewhere in remote space. A photon from a distant galaxy just happens to pass them. How long does it take to do that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nldi44$1vsd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387147 |
On 04/07/16 12:58, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>>> The argument is over the word declare. Einstein used the word but the >>>> aether had already been found to be superfluous by Poincare and Lorentz. >>> >>> So what? At the time many scientists believed in aether and others did >>> not. By declaring aether superfluous, he is stating that his work does >>> not depend on any aether. > >> The existence of the aether is assumed in his second postulate. > > No, it is not. There is no word "because" in his statement of the Second > Postulate: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite > velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting > body." That merely shows how little Einstein knew about physics. He didn't think he had to specify a reference frame for light speed because everybody knew it was the aether. > Similarly, if I use a postulate "The sky is blue" in a paper, it does not > assume there is a giant blue bowl placed over the earth that makes the sky > blue. That would be one way for the sky to be blue, but the statement > "The sky is blue" does not assume the giant bowl exists or doesn't exist. > The statement "The speed of light in a vacuum is always c regardless of the > motion of the emitter" does not assume an ether exists or doesn't exist. All speeds need a reference. Either Einstein was completely ignorant or he believed in a light carrying medium...like just about everyone else did at the time. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web