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 14 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 19 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlm0bu$dmp$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387389 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:54:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:34:23 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >> This all takes place in a reference frame where the rod is stationary, >> >> the rod has a length of L, one end of the rod is at x=0 and the other >> >> end of the rod is at x=L. So, in this case, x_emission=0 and x_arrival=L >> >> for one beam of light, and x_emission=L and x_arrival=0 for the other >> >> beam. That's what it means for the beams to be emitted from one end of >> >> the rod and arrives at the other. Do you not even understand that? >> >> >No idiot.... >> >> So you admit that you don't understand the standard process of setting >> up a coordinate system for this problem. >> >> I'll do this: Set up a coordinate system, any coordinate system you >> want, Cartesian, cylindrical or polar, whatever you can understand. >> Tell us the coordinates for the two ends of the rod of length L. >> Tell us, using your chosen coordinates, the positions and times >> for the two x_emission positions and t_emission times when the two >> pulses of light (one from each end) were sent. Now, tell us the >> x_arrival and t_arrival positions and times for the two pulses when >> they reach the other ends of the rod. >idiot.....the rod is one object. Therefore x-emission=0 for both ends and >x-arrival=L for both ends. So now you've changed the problem, to one where you send two beams of light from the same end of the rod to the other end. Why? This new problem is not very useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 12:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlm28l$f1l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387389 |
On 7/7/2016 11:10 AM, kenseto wrote: > idiot.....the rod is one object. Therefore x-emission=0 for both ends and x-arrival=L for both ends. > In any case x in the LT does not mean the different ends of the rod. It means the distance of the > rod from the observer's coordinate system. No, Ken, this is completely wrong. In the Lorentz transforms: t' = gamma( t-vx/c^2 ) x' = gamma( x-vt ) the quantity x is not a distance but a POSITION (that is, a spatial coordinate), the quantity t is not a duration but a TIME (that is, a temporal coordinate). If you didn't know this about the Lorentz transforms, then you never learned what they are. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 05:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9123d272-822e-42ce-99b3-2f3b3eb9884f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387397 |
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:07:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/7/2016 11:10 AM, kenseto wrote: > > idiot.....the rod is one object. Therefore x-emission=0 for both ends and x-arrival=L for both ends. > > In any case x in the LT does not mean the different ends of the rod. It means the distance of the > > rod from the observer's coordinate system. > > No, Ken, this is completely wrong. > In the Lorentz transforms: > t' = gamma( t-vx/c^2 ) > x' = gamma( x-vt ) > the quantity x is not a distance but a POSITION (that is, a spatial > coordinate), What is the unit of x if it's not a distance in meters? > the quantity t is not a duration but a TIME (that is, a temporal > coordinate). What is the unit of TIME (t) if it's not duration in seconds? > > If you didn't know this about the Lorentz transforms, then you never > learned what they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 07:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlo75q$139r$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387432 |
On 7/8/2016 7:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:07:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/7/2016 11:10 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> idiot.....the rod is one object. Therefore x-emission=0 for both ends and x-arrival=L for both ends. >>> In any case x in the LT does not mean the different ends of the rod. It means the distance of the >>> rod from the observer's coordinate system. >> >> No, Ken, this is completely wrong. >> In the Lorentz transforms: >> t' = gamma( t-vx/c^2 ) >> x' = gamma( x-vt ) >> the quantity x is not a distance but a POSITION (that is, a spatial >> coordinate), > > What is the unit of x if it's not a distance in meters? It is a POSITION in meters. > > >> the quantity t is not a duration but a TIME (that is, a temporal >> coordinate). > > What is the unit of TIME (t) if it's not duration in seconds? It is a TIME in seconds. Ken, do you know the difference between saying it is now 12:34:55 and saying that something took 4 hours, 15 minutes, and 5 seconds to happen? Do you know what a coordinate IS? > >> >> If you didn't know this about the Lorentz transforms, then you never >> learned what they are. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 10:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlj9il$h4c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387295 |
On 7/6/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:43:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:28:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/5/2016 1:18 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/5/2016 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:35:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/4/2016 3:30 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:03:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2016 12:48 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are proposing discarding the Lorentz transformations when discussing >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity??? >>>>>>>>>>> No I am proposing discarding the coordinate system of the LT and use the delta form >>>>>>>>>>> of the LT. The coordinate system of the LT give results disagree with actual measurements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken, the Lorentz transform is a transform between systems of >>>>>>>>>> coordinates. To get rid of the coordinate systems is to deny that the >>>>>>>>>> Lorentz transforms are coordinate transforms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The delta form of the LT is insensitive to directions of relative motion and it agree with observations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And no, the Lorentz transforms do not disagree with actual measurements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes the coordinate form of the LT give different transit time for the different directions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the primed frame, yes. Not in the rod frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and this >>>>>>>>> disagrees with what the rod frame measures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is not a problem. It's just fine for the rod frame and the primed >>>>>>>> frame to disagree on that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a problem.....you get two different transit times because of the following bogus assumptions: >>>>>>> 1. left to right....the speed of light is c+v. No such velocity exist in any frame. >>>>>>> 2. right to left.....the speed of light is c-v. No such velocity exists in any frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, the speed of light is not c+v or c-v in any frame. >>>>>> That's not where the difference in transit time comes from. >>>>>> If you just do the algebra, you'll see that the transit times are >>>>>> different in the. primed frame, even thought the speed of light is still >>>>>> c in that frame. >>>>> >>>>> Then show us how the LT get two different transit times....don't just give us a bunch of bull-shit. >>>> >>>> I did, Ken. >>>> 1. I gave you the correct Lorentz transformations for the emission time >>>> and for the arrival time. >>>> 2. I gave you all the correct quantities to substitute in the variables >>>> for the left-going light and for the right-going light. >>>> 3. I told you the step by steps you'd need to take to get the transit >>>> times (it was like three steps). >>> >>> The LT equation is as follows: >>> t'=gamma(t-vL/c^2) >> >> You're not following directions, and you did not do the Lorentz >> transform correctly. I gave you simple directions. >> >> 1. You need to find both t_emmission' and t_arrival' for the >> left-to-right light. To do this, you need to use the equation TWICE, >> once for the emission and once for the arrival. When you do this, make >> sure you enter the values for t_emission and x_emission for the first >> time you use the equation, and then enter the values for t_arrival and >> x_arrival for the second time you use the equation. A reminder what >> those variables are: >> t_emission = 0 >> x_emission = 0 >> t_arrival = L/c >> x_arrival = L >> To help you understand how to do this, I will make the substitutions for >> one step: >> t_emission' = gamma( t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2 ) >> = gamma ( 0 - v * 0/c^2 ) >> = gamma (0) >> = 0 >> t_arrival' = gamma( t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2 ) >> = gamma ( L/c - v*L/c^2) >> = gamma ( (c-v)L/c^2 ) >> >> 2. Now you need to find both t_emmission' and t_arrival' for the >> right-to-left light. To do this, you need to use the equation TWICE, >> once for the emission and once for the arrival. When you do this, make >> sure you enter the values for t_emission and x_emission for the first >> time you use the equation, and then enter the values for t_arrival and >> x_arrival for the second time you use the equation. A reminder what >> those variables are: >> t_emission = 0 >> x_emission = L >> t_arrival = L/c >> x_arrival = 0 >> Since I showed you how to do this for step 1, then I hope you can do it >> for step 2. > > Sure you made the bogus assertion that left to right for x_emission=L and Right to > left for x_emmission=0 and then insert these quantities to get different transit Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? Let's start at the beginning. You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is at x=0. Do you agree with that? If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of the rod? > time in the different directions.....what this mean is that the different transit times > for the opposite direction is the result of bogus assertions. not very scientific. Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you call it bogus assertions. Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? > >> >> 3. For the transit times, you need to find t_arrival' - t_emission' for >> both the left-to-right light found in step 1, and do likewise for the >> right-to-left light found in step 2. I hope you can do this simple step. >> >>> To get different transit times for the opposite directions: You simply said >>> that in one direction the value of L is zero and in another direction the value is L. >> >> No, I did not say the value of L is 0 ever. What I said is that for the >> left-to-right light, the emission happens at the left end of the rod, >> where x=0. This means x_emission = 0 and does not mean that L=0. And the >> arrival happens at the right end of the rod, where x=L. This means >> x_arrival = L and does not mean that L=0. >> >> For the right-to-left light, the emission happens at x=L (the right end) >> and the arrival happens at x=0 (the left end). Thus x_emission = L in >> this case and x_arrival = 0. >> >> I get the feeling you don't know how to substitute quantities into >> equations, a fifth grade skill. >> >>> This is doing physics by assertion. Also, it appears that you don't >>> know what the term (vL/c^2) means....L does not mean the point of emission. >> >> For the right-to-left light, the point of emission is at the right end >> of the rod, right? That's where x=L. The location of the right end of >> the rod has an x value of L. >> -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <715a3396-3144-42ba-b90b-50c476436a8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387302 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:43:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/6/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:28:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/5/2016 1:18 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/5/2016 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:35:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/4/2016 3:30 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:03:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2016 12:48 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are proposing discarding the Lorentz transformations when discussing > >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity??? > >>>>>>>>>>> No I am proposing discarding the coordinate system of the LT and use the delta form > >>>>>>>>>>> of the LT. The coordinate system of the LT give results disagree with actual measurements. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ken, the Lorentz transform is a transform between systems of > >>>>>>>>>> coordinates. To get rid of the coordinate systems is to deny that the > >>>>>>>>>> Lorentz transforms are coordinate transforms. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The delta form of the LT is insensitive to directions of relative motion and it agree with observations. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And no, the Lorentz transforms do not disagree with actual measurements. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes the coordinate form of the LT give different transit time for the different directions > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In the primed frame, yes. Not in the rod frame. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> and this > >>>>>>>>> disagrees with what the rod frame measures. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is not a problem. It's just fine for the rod frame and the primed > >>>>>>>> frame to disagree on that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is a problem.....you get two different transit times because of the following bogus assumptions: > >>>>>>> 1. left to right....the speed of light is c+v. No such velocity exist in any frame. > >>>>>>> 2. right to left.....the speed of light is c-v. No such velocity exists in any frame. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken, the speed of light is not c+v or c-v in any frame. > >>>>>> That's not where the difference in transit time comes from. > >>>>>> If you just do the algebra, you'll see that the transit times are > >>>>>> different in the. primed frame, even thought the speed of light is still > >>>>>> c in that frame. > >>>>> > >>>>> Then show us how the LT get two different transit times....don't just give us a bunch of bull-shit. > >>>> > >>>> I did, Ken. > >>>> 1. I gave you the correct Lorentz transformations for the emission time > >>>> and for the arrival time. > >>>> 2. I gave you all the correct quantities to substitute in the variables > >>>> for the left-going light and for the right-going light. > >>>> 3. I told you the step by steps you'd need to take to get the transit > >>>> times (it was like three steps). > >>> > >>> The LT equation is as follows: > >>> t'=gamma(t-vL/c^2) > >> > >> You're not following directions, and you did not do the Lorentz > >> transform correctly. I gave you simple directions. > >> > >> 1. You need to find both t_emmission' and t_arrival' for the > >> left-to-right light. To do this, you need to use the equation TWICE, > >> once for the emission and once for the arrival. When you do this, make > >> sure you enter the values for t_emission and x_emission for the first > >> time you use the equation, and then enter the values for t_arrival and > >> x_arrival for the second time you use the equation. A reminder what > >> those variables are: > >> t_emission = 0 > >> x_emission = 0 > >> t_arrival = L/c > >> x_arrival = L > >> To help you understand how to do this, I will make the substitutions for > >> one step: > >> t_emission' = gamma( t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2 ) > >> = gamma ( 0 - v * 0/c^2 ) > >> = gamma (0) > >> = 0 > >> t_arrival' = gamma( t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2 ) > >> = gamma ( L/c - v*L/c^2) > >> = gamma ( (c-v)L/c^2 ) > >> > >> 2. Now you need to find both t_emmission' and t_arrival' for the > >> right-to-left light. To do this, you need to use the equation TWICE, > >> once for the emission and once for the arrival. When you do this, make > >> sure you enter the values for t_emission and x_emission for the first > >> time you use the equation, and then enter the values for t_arrival and > >> x_arrival for the second time you use the equation. A reminder what > >> those variables are: > >> t_emission = 0 > >> x_emission = L > >> t_arrival = L/c > >> x_arrival = 0 > >> Since I showed you how to do this for step 1, then I hope you can do it > >> for step 2. > > > > Sure you made the bogus assertion that left to right for x_emission=L and Right to > > left for x_emmission=0 and then insert these quantities to get different transit > > Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? > > Let's start at thee beginning. > You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the > rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is > at x=0. Do you agree with that? Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. The rod is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its length in both directions. > > If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of > the rod? You need to get rid of these coordinate shit....the unprimed observer uses the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit time for light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. > > > time in the different directions.....what this mean is that the different transit times > > for the opposite direction is the result of bogus assertions. not very scientific. > > Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and > x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you > call it bogus assertions. > > Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? > > > > >> > >> 3. For the transit times, you need to find t_arrival' - t_emission' for > >> both the left-to-right light found in step 1, and do likewise for the > >> right-to-left light found in step 2. I hope you can do this simple step. > >> > >>> To get different transit times for the opposite directions: You simply said > >>> that in one direction the value of L is zero and in another direction the value is L. > >> > >> No, I did not say the value of L is 0 ever. What I said is that for the > >> left-to-right light, the emission happens at the left end of the rod, > >> where x=0. This means x_emission = 0 and does not mean that L=0. And the > >> arrival happens at the right end of the rod, where x=L. This means > >> x_arrival = L and does not mean that L=0. > >> > >> For the right-to-left light, the emission happens at x=L (the right end) > >> and the arrival happens at x=0 (the left end). Thus x_emission = L in > >> this case and x_arrival = 0. > >> > >> I get the feeling you don't know how to substitute quantities into > >> equations, a fifth grade skill. > >> > >>> This is doing physics by assertion. Also, it appears that you don't > >>> know what the term (vL/c^2) means....L does not mean the point of emission. > >> > >> For the right-to-left light, the point of emission is at the right end > >> of the rod, right? That's where x=L. The location of the right end of > >> the rod has an x value of L. > >> > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljrud$1dec$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387333 |
On 7/6/2016 3:53 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:43:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/6/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:28:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/5/2016 1:18 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/5/2016 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:35:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2016 3:30 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:03:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2016 12:48 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are proposing discarding the Lorentz transformations when discussing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity??? >>>>>>>>>>>>> No I am proposing discarding the coordinate system of the LT and use the delta form >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the LT. The coordinate system of the LT give results disagree with actual measurements. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, the Lorentz transform is a transform between systems of >>>>>>>>>>>> coordinates. To get rid of the coordinate systems is to deny that the >>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz transforms are coordinate transforms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The delta form of the LT is insensitive to directions of relative motion and it agree with observations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And no, the Lorentz transforms do not disagree with actual measurements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes the coordinate form of the LT give different transit time for the different directions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the primed frame, yes. Not in the rod frame. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and this >>>>>>>>>>> disagrees with what the rod frame measures. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is not a problem. It's just fine for the rod frame and the primed >>>>>>>>>> frame to disagree on that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a problem.....you get two different transit times because of the following bogus assumptions: >>>>>>>>> 1. left to right....the speed of light is c+v. No such velocity exist in any frame. >>>>>>>>> 2. right to left.....the speed of light is c-v. No such velocity exists in any frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken, the speed of light is not c+v or c-v in any frame. >>>>>>>> That's not where the difference in transit time comes from. >>>>>>>> If you just do the algebra, you'll see that the transit times are >>>>>>>> different in the. primed frame, even thought the speed of light is still >>>>>>>> c in that frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then show us how the LT get two different transit times....don't just give us a bunch of bull-shit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did, Ken. >>>>>> 1. I gave you the correct Lorentz transformations for the emission time >>>>>> and for the arrival time. >>>>>> 2. I gave you all the correct quantities to substitute in the variables >>>>>> for the left-going light and for the right-going light. >>>>>> 3. I told you the step by steps you'd need to take to get the transit >>>>>> times (it was like three steps). >>>>> >>>>> The LT equation is as follows: >>>>> t'=gamma(t-vL/c^2) >>>> >>>> You're not following directions, and you did not do the Lorentz >>>> transform correctly. I gave you simple directions. >>>> >>>> 1. You need to find both t_emmission' and t_arrival' for the >>>> left-to-right light. To do this, you need to use the equation TWICE, >>>> once for the emission and once for the arrival. When you do this, make >>>> sure you enter the values for t_emission and x_emission for the first >>>> time you use the equation, and then enter the values for t_arrival and >>>> x_arrival for the second time you use the equation. A reminder what >>>> those variables are: >>>> t_emission = 0 >>>> x_emission = 0 >>>> t_arrival = L/c >>>> x_arrival = L >>>> To help you understand how to do this, I will make the substitutions for >>>> one step: >>>> t_emission' = gamma( t_emission - v*x_emission/c^2 ) >>>> = gamma ( 0 - v * 0/c^2 ) >>>> = gamma (0) >>>> = 0 >>>> t_arrival' = gamma( t_arrival - v*x_arrival/c^2 ) >>>> = gamma ( L/c - v*L/c^2) >>>> = gamma ( (c-v)L/c^2 ) >>>> >>>> 2. Now you need to find both t_emmission' and t_arrival' for the >>>> right-to-left light. To do this, you need to use the equation TWICE, >>>> once for the emission and once for the arrival. When you do this, make >>>> sure you enter the values for t_emission and x_emission for the first >>>> time you use the equation, and then enter the values for t_arrival and >>>> x_arrival for the second time you use the equation. A reminder what >>>> those variables are: >>>> t_emission = 0 >>>> x_emission = L >>>> t_arrival = L/c >>>> x_arrival = 0 >>>> Since I showed you how to do this for step 1, then I hope you can do it >>>> for step 2. >>> >>> Sure you made the bogus assertion that left to right for x_emission=L and Right to >>> left for x_emmission=0 and then insert these quantities to get different transit >> >> Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? >> >> Let's start at thee beginning. >> You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the >> rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is >> at x=0. Do you agree with that? > > Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. Yes, there is, when you use the correct Lorentz transforms. You asked how to do it, using those correct Lorentz transforms. I'm showing you how to do it. Do you want me to show you how to do it or not? So the rod is L meters long and it's sitting on the x axis with the left end on the origin. So go ahead. Assign the values for the locations of the ends of the rod: Left end: x = ? Right end: x = ? (Hint: I've already done this above. Can you find it? Can you do it?) > The rod is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its length in both directions. > >> >> If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of >> the rod? > > You need to get rid of these coordinate shit. That's how the correct Lorentz transforms work. Do you want to learn how to use them or not? >...the unprimed observer uses the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit > time for light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. Nope, that's not how you use the Lorentz transforms. I'm showing you how BOOKS teach how to use the Lorentz transforms. Are you going to say that all the books do not know how to use the Lorentz transforms? > >> >>> time in the different directions.....what this mean is that the different transit times >>> for the opposite direction is the result of bogus assertions. not very scientific. >> >> Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and >> x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you >> call it bogus assertions. >> >> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? >> >>> >>>> >>>> 3. For the transit times, you need to find t_arrival' - t_emission' for >>>> both the left-to-right light found in step 1, and do likewise for the >>>> right-to-left light found in step 2. I hope you can do this simple step. >>>> >>>>> To get different transit times for the opposite directions: You simply said >>>>> that in one direction the value of L is zero and in another direction the value is L. >>>> >>>> No, I did not say the value of L is 0 ever. What I said is that for the >>>> left-to-right light, the emission happens at the left end of the rod, >>>> where x=0. This means x_emission = 0 and does not mean that L=0. And the >>>> arrival happens at the right end of the rod, where x=L. This means >>>> x_arrival = L and does not mean that L=0. >>>> >>>> For the right-to-left light, the emission happens at x=L (the right end) >>>> and the arrival happens at x=0 (the left end). Thus x_emission = L in >>>> this case and x_arrival = 0. >>>> >>>> I get the feeling you don't know how to substitute quantities into >>>> equations, a fifth grade skill. >>>> >>>>> This is doing physics by assertion. Also, it appears that you don't >>>>> know what the term (vL/c^2) means....L does not mean the point of emission. >>>> >>>> For the right-to-left light, the point of emission is at the right end >>>> of the rod, right? That's where x=L. The location of the right end of >>>> the rod has an x value of L. >>>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 22:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlk0gn$hk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387333 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? >> >> Let's start at thee beginning. >> You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the >> rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is >> at x=0. Do you agree with that? >Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. The rod >is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its length in >both directions. >> If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of >> the rod? >You need to get rid of these coordinate shit....the unprimed observer uses > the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit time for >light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. >> Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and >> x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you >> call it bogus assertions. >> >> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? It appears that, from his responses that I quoted, that the answer is definitely "no".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 17:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlk1e2$1m7g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387350 |
On 7/6/2016 5:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? >>> >>> Let's start at thee beginning. >>> You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the >>> rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is >>> at x=0. Do you agree with that? > >> Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. The rod >> is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its length in >> both directions. > >>> If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of >>> the rod? > >> You need to get rid of these coordinate shit....the unprimed observer uses >> the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit time for >> light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. > >>> Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and >>> x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you >>> call it bogus assertions. >>> >>> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? > > It appears that, from his responses that I quoted, that the answer > is definitely "no". > I would tend to agree with you. Isn't it interesting that a guy that cannot substitute quantities into variables in a simple equation claims to be a hot-shit physicist? Who does he think he's fooling? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlkg4i$te2$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387352 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 7/6/2016 5:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? >> >> It appears that, from his responses that I quoted, that the answer >> is definitely "no". >> >I would tend to agree with you. >Isn't it interesting that a guy that cannot substitute quantities into >variables in a simple equation claims to be a hot-shit physicist? Who >does he think he's fooling? He's delusional. Just like Ralph Rabbidge, who also imagines himself as being a hot-shit physicist, named Henry Wilson, despite having his own math "issues" and being unable (actually unwilling) to follow the proofs Paul Anderson and others point him to... And, well, the list is too long to include here. But like I said, I'm here for the kooks, not the physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9843a2b-5614-4ff8-b2fc-6af451fef4dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387352 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 5:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > > >> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >>> Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? > >>> > >>> Let's start at thee beginning. > >>> You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the > >>> rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is > >>> at x=0. Do you agree with that? > > > >> Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. The rod > >> is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its length in > >> both directions. > > > >>> If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of > >>> the rod? > > > >> You need to get rid of these coordinate shit....the unprimed observer uses > >> the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit time for > >> light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. > > > >>> Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and > >>> x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you > >>> call it bogus assertions. > >>> > >>> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? > > > > It appears that, from his responses that I quoted, that the answer > > is definitely "no". > > > > I would tend to agree with you. > > Isn't it interesting that a guy that cannot substitute quantities into > variables in a simple equation claims to be a hot-shit physicist? Who > does he think he's fooling? > idiot....it is up to you to show us how you get two different transit times without violating the isotropy light speed in all frames. I disagree with Your arbitrarily assigned different values for the two different directions to get two different transit times. That's why I don't waste time on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nllofu$1v55$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387374 |
On 7/7/2016 7:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 5:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>> >>>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>>> Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? >>>>> >>>>> Let's start at thee beginning. >>>>> You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the >>>>> rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is >>>>> at x=0. Do you agree with that? >>> >>>> Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. The rod >>>> is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its length in >>>> both directions. >>> >>>>> If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of >>>>> the rod? >>> >>>> You need to get rid of these coordinate shit....the unprimed observer uses >>>> the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit time for >>>> light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. >>> >>>>> Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and >>>>> x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you >>>>> call it bogus assertions. >>>>> >>>>> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? >>> >>> It appears that, from his responses that I quoted, that the answer >>> is definitely "no". >>> >> >> I would tend to agree with you. >> >> Isn't it interesting that a guy that cannot substitute quantities into >> variables in a simple equation claims to be a hot-shit physicist? Who >> does he think he's fooling? >> > > idiot....it is up to you to show us how you get two different transit times > without violating the isotropy light speed in all frames. And I'm showing you, and you are busy saying you don't want to look at it and that there is no need to do it that way. In other words, you ask for someone to show it to you and then you refuse to look at it. > I disagree with > Your arbitrarily assigned different values > for the two different directions You disagree with the rod of length L having the left end at x=0 and the right end at x=L??? How can you disagree with THAT? > to get two different transit times. That's why I don't waste time on it. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <982b6eb6-20ca-466e-ae8d-24bdcde2737c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387381 |
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/7/2016 7:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/6/2016 5:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>> > >>>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? > >>>>> > >>>>> Let's start at thee beginning. > >>>>> You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the > >>>>> rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is > >>>>> at x=0. Do you agree with that? > >>> > >>>> Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. The rod > >>>> is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its length in > >>>> both directions. > >>> > >>>>> If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of > >>>>> the rod? > >>> > >>>> You need to get rid of these coordinate shit....the unprimed observer uses > >>>> the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit time for > >>>> light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. > >>> > >>>>> Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and > >>>>> x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you > >>>>> call it bogus assertions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? > >>> > >>> It appears that, from his responses that I quoted, that the answer > >>> is definitely "no". > >>> > >> > >> I would tend to agree with you. > >> > >> Isn't it interesting that a guy that cannot substitute quantities into > >> variables in a simple equation claims to be a hot-shit physicist? Who > >> does he think he's fooling? > >> > > > > idiot....it is up to you to show us how you get two different transit times > > without violating the isotropy light speed in all frames. > > And I'm showing you, and you are busy saying you don't want to look at > it and that there is no need to do it that way. In other words, you ask > for someone to show it to you and then you refuse to look at it. > > > I disagree with > > Your arbitrarily assigned different values > > for the two different directions > > You disagree with the rod of length L having the left end at x=0 and the > right end at x=L??? How can you disagree with THAT? Yes I disagree....why? Because x-emission=o for both ends and x-arrival=L for both ends. In any case x in the LT is not the point of emission or arrival. It is the distance of the rod from origin of the observer's coordinate system. > > > to get two different transit times. That's why I don't waste time on it. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlm2c3$f1l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387391 |
On 7/7/2016 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/7/2016 7:38 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/6/2016 5:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's start at thee beginning. >>>>>>> You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end of the >>>>>>> rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the rod is >>>>>>> at x=0. Do you agree with that? >>>>> >>>>>> Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. The rod >>>>>> is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its length in >>>>>> both directions. >>>>> >>>>>>> If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right end of >>>>>>> the rod? >>>>> >>>>>> You need to get rid of these coordinate shit....the unprimed observer uses >>>>>> the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit time for >>>>>> light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. >>>>> >>>>>>> Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of x_emission and >>>>>>> x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow it, you >>>>>>> call it bogus assertions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? >>>>> >>>>> It appears that, from his responses that I quoted, that the answer >>>>> is definitely "no". >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would tend to agree with you. >>>> >>>> Isn't it interesting that a guy that cannot substitute quantities into >>>> variables in a simple equation claims to be a hot-shit physicist? Who >>>> does he think he's fooling? >>>> >>> >>> idiot....it is up to you to show us how you get two different transit times >>> without violating the isotropy light speed in all frames. >> >> And I'm showing you, and you are busy saying you don't want to look at >> it and that there is no need to do it that way. In other words, you ask >> for someone to show it to you and then you refuse to look at it. >> >>> I disagree with >>> Your arbitrarily assigned different values >>> for the two different directions >> >> You disagree with the rod of length L having the left end at x=0 and the >> right end at x=L??? How can you disagree with THAT? > > Yes I disagree....why? Because x-emission=o for both ends and x-arrival=L for both ends. No sir. You are confusing position with distance traveled. x is a POSITION, not a distance traveled. > In any case x in the LT is not the point of emission or arrival. It is the distance of the > rod from origin of the observer's coordinate system. NO IT IS NOT. x and t, and x' and t' are POSITIONS and TIMES, not distances and durations. You didn't know this? >> >>> to get two different transit times. That's why I don't waste time on it. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 12:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlm3f7$ghh$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387398 |
On 7/7/2016 12:09 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/7/2016 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/7/2016 7:38 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 7/6/2016 5:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken, you have it backwards. Can you not read? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's start at thee beginning. >>>>>>>> You have a rod at rest in the unprimed frame, with the left end >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>> rod at the origin. This means the x value of the left end of the >>>>>>>> rod is >>>>>>>> at x=0. Do you agree with that? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sigh....there is no need to assign value to the ends of the rod. >>>>>>> The rod >>>>>>> is L meters long and it takes light L/c seconds to traverse its >>>>>>> length in >>>>>>> both directions. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the rod has a length L, what is the x location of the right >>>>>>>> end of >>>>>>>> the rod? >>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to get rid of these coordinate shit....the unprimed >>>>>>> observer uses >>>>>>> the same equation of Delta(t')=gamma*L/c to predict the transit >>>>>>> time for >>>>>>> light to traverse a moving rod L in both directions. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken, you can't seem to follow how to assign the values of >>>>>>>> x_emission and >>>>>>>> x_arrival for the two passing light beams. When you can't follow >>>>>>>> it, you >>>>>>>> call it bogus assertions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you know how to do 5th grade algebra or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> It appears that, from his responses that I quoted, that the answer >>>>>> is definitely "no". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would tend to agree with you. >>>>> >>>>> Isn't it interesting that a guy that cannot substitute quantities into >>>>> variables in a simple equation claims to be a hot-shit physicist? Who >>>>> does he think he's fooling? >>>>> >>>> >>>> idiot....it is up to you to show us how you get two different >>>> transit times >>>> without violating the isotropy light speed in all frames. >>> >>> And I'm showing you, and you are busy saying you don't want to look at >>> it and that there is no need to do it that way. In other words, you ask >>> for someone to show it to you and then you refuse to look at it. >>> >>>> I disagree with >>>> Your arbitrarily assigned different values >>>> for the two different directions >>> >>> You disagree with the rod of length L having the left end at x=0 and the >>> right end at x=L??? How can you disagree with THAT? >> >> Yes I disagree....why? Because x-emission=o for both ends and >> x-arrival=L for both ends. > > No sir. You are confusing position with distance traveled. x is a > POSITION, not a distance traveled. > >> In any case x in the LT is not the point of emission or arrival. It is >> the distance of the >> rod from origin of the observer's coordinate system. > > NO IT IS NOT. x and t, and x' and t' are POSITIONS and TIMES, not > distances and durations. You didn't know this? You know, Ken, it's a sad commentary that you have spent years and years and years criticizing special relativity, and you never even bothered to learn what the variables in the Lorentz transformation mean. How can you criticize something that you have such basic misunderstandings of? > >>> >>>> to get two different transit times. That's why I don't waste time on >>>> it. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 11:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nllul5$9q2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387295 |
On 7/6/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > Sure you made the bogus assertion that left to right for x_emission=L and Right to > left for x_emmission=0 and then insert these quantities to get different transit time > in the different directions.....what this mean is that the different transit times > for the opposite direction is the result of bogus assertions. not very scientific. Ken, let's do a simple exercise to see how to assign x values to use in the LT that has the vx/c^2 term. Suppose there is a 5m-long stick marked in meters and lying on the floor. You are standing at one end of the stick, where the mark right next to your feet says "0 m". I am standing at the other end of the stick, where the mark right next to my feet says "5 m". Both of us are going to walk in opposite directions toward the other end of the stick, and we'll pass each other on the way. When you start walking, what is your x value? When you get to the other end of the stick, what is your x value? When I start walking, what is my x value? When I get to the other end of the stick, what is my x value? You should have four answers, all in meters. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a058bf5-8204-46e7-9d04-498eb49f041a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387388 |
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Sure you made the bogus assertion that left to right for x_emission=L and Right to > > left for x_emmission=0 and then insert these quantities to get different transit time > > in the different directions.....what this mean is that the different transit times > > for the opposite direction is the result of bogus assertions. not very scientific. > > Ken, let's do a simple exercise to see how to assign x values to use in > the LT that has the vx/c^2 term. > > Suppose there is a 5m-long stick marked in meters and lying on the > floor. You are standing at one end of the stick, where the mark right > next to your feet says "0 m". I am standing at the other end of the > stick, where the mark right next to my feet says "5 m". > > Both of us are going to walk in opposite directions toward the other end > of the stick, and we'll pass each other on the way. > > When you start walking, what is your x value? x=0 > When you get to the other end of the stick, what is your x value? x=5 meter > When I start walking, what is my x value? x=0 > When I get to the other end of the stick, what is my x value? x=5 meters > > You should have four answers, all in meters. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 12:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlm3b7$ghh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387393 |
On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Sure you made the bogus assertion that left to right for x_emission=L and Right to >>> left for x_emmission=0 and then insert these quantities to get different transit time >>> in the different directions.....what this mean is that the different transit times >>> for the opposite direction is the result of bogus assertions. not very scientific. >> >> Ken, let's do a simple exercise to see how to assign x values to use in >> the LT that has the vx/c^2 term. >> >> Suppose there is a 5m-long stick marked in meters and lying on the >> floor. You are standing at one end of the stick, where the mark right >> next to your feet says "0 m". I am standing at the other end of the >> stick, where the mark right next to my feet says "5 m". >> >> Both of us are going to walk in opposite directions toward the other end >> of the stick, and we'll pass each other on the way. >> >> When you start walking, what is your x value? > > x=0 > >> When you get to the other end of the stick, what is your x value? > > x=5 meter > >> When I start walking, what is my x value? > > x=0 Why is my coordinate zero, when I'm standing on the mark that says 5m on the stick. x is a POSITION on the stick, not a distance traveled. > >> When I get to the other end of the stick, what is my x value? > > x=5 meters Again wrong. x is a POSITION on the stick, not a distance traveled. >> >> You should have four answers, all in meters. I see you don't know basics of high school physics. >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-07-08 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ec68571-1be2-4162-84bd-5ee1087d77a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387402 |
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:26:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/6/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Sure you made the bogus assertion that left to right for x_emission=L and Right to > >>> left for x_emmission=0 and then insert these quantities to get different transit time > >>> in the different directions.....what this mean is that the different transit times > >>> for the opposite direction is the result of bogus assertions. not very scientific. > >> > >> Ken, let's do a simple exercise to see how to assign x values to use in > >> the LT that has the vx/c^2 term. > >> > >> Suppose there is a 5m-long stick marked in meters and lying on the > >> floor. You are standing at one end of the stick, where the mark right > >> next to your feet says "0 m". I am standing at the other end of the > >> stick, where the mark right next to my feet says "5 m". > >> > >> Both of us are going to walk in opposite directions toward the other end > >> of the stick, and we'll pass each other on the way. > >> > >> When you start walking, what is your x value? > > > > x=0 > > > >> When you get to the other end of the stick, what is your x value? > > > > x=5 meter > > > >> When I start walking, what is my x value? > > > > x=0 > > Why is my coordinate zero, when I'm standing on the mark that says 5m on > the stick. The stick has two sets of markings on both directions: 1. One set is zero to 5 meters 2. The other set is 5 meters to zero. > > x is a POSITION on the stick, not a distance traveled. > > > > >> When I get to the other end of the stick, what is my x value? > > > > x=5 meters > > Again wrong. x is a POSITION on the stick, not a distance traveled. > > >> > >> You should have four answers, all in meters. > > I see you don't know basics of high school physics. > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 07:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlo7a8$139r$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387433 |
On 7/8/2016 7:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:26:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/6/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Sure you made the bogus assertion that left to right for x_emission=L and Right to >>>>> left for x_emmission=0 and then insert these quantities to get different transit time >>>>> in the different directions.....what this mean is that the different transit times >>>>> for the opposite direction is the result of bogus assertions. not very scientific. >>>> >>>> Ken, let's do a simple exercise to see how to assign x values to use in >>>> the LT that has the vx/c^2 term. >>>> >>>> Suppose there is a 5m-long stick marked in meters and lying on the >>>> floor. You are standing at one end of the stick, where the mark right >>>> next to your feet says "0 m". I am standing at the other end of the >>>> stick, where the mark right next to my feet says "5 m". >>>> >>>> Both of us are going to walk in opposite directions toward the other end >>>> of the stick, and we'll pass each other on the way. >>>> >>>> When you start walking, what is your x value? >>> >>> x=0 >>> >>>> When you get to the other end of the stick, what is your x value? >>> >>> x=5 meter >>> >>>> When I start walking, what is my x value? >>> >>> x=0 >> >> Why is my coordinate zero, when I'm standing on the mark that says 5m on >> the stick. > > The stick has two sets of markings on both directions: > 1. One set is zero to 5 meters > 2. The other set is 5 meters to zero. The origin is at 0 m, not at 5 m. When I start walking at the 5 m mark on the stick, my position is x=5m. Obviously. The more you argue about something obvious, the stupider you're going to look. What's more important to you? Perpetuating the argument or refraining from looking stupid? > >> >> x is a POSITION on the stick, not a distance traveled. >> >>> >>>> When I get to the other end of the stick, what is my x value? >>> >>> x=5 meters >> >> Again wrong. x is a POSITION on the stick, not a distance traveled. >> >>>> >>>> You should have four answers, all in meters. >> >> I see you don't know basics of high school physics. >> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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]
Page 14 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web