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 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2f487d0-c73d-4c19-ad4b-922b6fa2c214@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387193 |
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 and this disagrees with what the rod frame measures. The delta form of the LT have no such problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 07:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlg9if$51d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387202 |
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. > The delta form of the LT have no such problem. It's not a problem. It's SUPPOSED to be like that. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 06:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdfaff64-9b2e-45c2-9cdb-004869c1ba7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387224 |
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. That means that the two different transit time you predicted are based on faulty assumptions. Gee why don't you wake up and learn some real physics. > > > The delta form of the LT have no such problem. > > It's not a problem. It's SUPPOSED to be like that. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlgdvj$cc3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387227 |
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. Doing the algebra will show this. > > That means that the two different transit time you predicted are based on faulty assumptions. > Gee why don't you wake up and learn some real physics. Doing some real physics involves putting the variables into the equations and doing a little algebra. It's not hard, Ken. Can you do it? > >> >>> The delta form of the LT have no such problem. >> >> It's not a problem. It's SUPPOSED to be like that. >> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-07-05 11:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <acc0c56f-be2a-4862-ba3a-09d869661ffa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387228 |
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. > > Doing the algebra will show this. > > > > > That means that the two different transit time you predicted are based on faulty assumptions. > > Gee why don't you wake up and learn some real physics. > > Doing some real physics involves putting the variables into the > equations and doing a little algebra. It's not hard, Ken. Can you do it? > > > > >> > >>> The delta form of the LT have no such problem. > >> > >> It's not a problem. It's SUPPOSED to be like that. > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2016-07-05 13:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlgu7o$17dk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387234 |
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). All you have to do is follow the three steps, substitute in the quantities as instructed, and then do the algebra to simplify the answer. I assume you can follow the steps and do very simple algebra. Can you follow those three steps and do the algebra or not? > > >> >> Doing the algebra will show this. >> >>> >>> That means that the two different transit time you predicted are based on faulty assumptions. >>> Gee why don't you wake up and learn some real physics. >> >> Doing some real physics involves putting the variables into the >> equations and doing a little algebra. It's not hard, Ken. Can you do it? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> The delta form of the LT have no such problem. >>>> >>>> It's not a problem. It's SUPPOSED to be like that. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7483b122-017f-449a-94cc-524a61fbc921@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387235 |
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) 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. 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. > > All you have to do is follow the three steps, substitute in the > quantities as instructed, and then do the algebra to simplify the > answer. I assume you can follow the steps and do very simple algebra. > > Can you follow those three steps and do the algebra or not? > > > > > > >> > >> Doing the algebra will show this. > >> > >>> > >>> That means that the two different transit time you predicted are based on faulty assumptions. > >>> Gee why don't you wake up and learn some real physics. > >> > >> Doing some real physics involves putting the variables into the > >> equations and doing a little algebra. It's not hard, Ken. Can you do it? > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> The delta form of the LT have no such problem. > >>>> > >>>> It's not a problem. It's SUPPOSED to be like that. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlj1t6$3su$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387285 |
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.
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.
>
>>
>> All you have to do is follow the three steps, substitute in the
>> quantities as instructed, and then do the algebra to simplify the
>> answer. I assume you can follow the steps and do very simple algebra.
>>
>> Can you follow those three steps and do the algebra or not?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doing the algebra will show this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That means that the two different transit time you predicted are based on faulty assumptions.
>>>>> Gee why don't you wake up and learn some real physics.
>>>>
>>>> Doing some real physics involves putting the variables into the
>>>> equations and doing a little algebra. It's not hard, Ken. Can you do it?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The delta form of the LT have no such problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a problem. It's SUPPOSED to be like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 08:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <870e8d70-2cbb-4076-ad79-dc23d55b4108@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387289 |
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 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. > > 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. > > > > >> > >> All you have to do is follow the three steps, substitute in the > >> quantities as instructed, and then do the algebra to simplify the > >> answer. I assume you can follow the steps and do very simple algebra. > >> > >> Can you follow those three steps and do the algebra or not? > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Doing the algebra will show this. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That means that the two different transit time you predicted are based on faulty assumptions. > >>>>> Gee why don't you wake up and learn some real physics. > >>>> > >>>> Doing some real physics involves putting the variables into the > >>>> equations and doing a little algebra. It's not hard, Ken. Can you do it? > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The delta form of the LT have no such problem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's not a problem. It's SUPPOSED to be like that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlj8ce$s7k$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387295 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:43:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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 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. 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f5b0bce-b00a-4964-ab49-114b0d1ebc7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387297 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:34:23 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:43:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> 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 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. > > 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....you arbitrarily assigning different values for the two different directions to get different transit times. That's not physics.....that's assertion. In any case you don't even know what the "x" in the term (vx/c^2) in the LT equation means....I'll give you a hint: it's not the length of the rod. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 09:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nllon7$1vje$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387377 |
On 7/7/2016 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > No idiot....you arbitrarily assigning different values for the two different directions to get different > transit times. That's not physics.....that's assertion. In any case you don't even know what the "x" in > the term (vx/c^2) in the LT equation means....I'll give you a hint: it's not the length of the rod. Right! The x in the LT is the POSITION of an event. Here we are talking about the POSITIONS of emissions and arrivals. For light traveling from the left end of the rod to the right end of the rod, the POSITION of the emission event is at x=0, and the POSITION of the arrival event is at x=L. How can you dispute that??? For light traveling from the right end of the rod to the left end of the rod, the POSITION of the emission event is at x=L and the POSITION of the arrival event is at x=0. How can you dispute that??? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d1aa757-7cb6-4e02-9780-41122e5ae34b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387383 |
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:24:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/7/2016 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > No idiot....you arbitrarily assigning different values for the two different directions to get different > > transit times. That's not physics.....that's assertion. In any case you don't even know what the "x" in > > the term (vx/c^2) in the LT equation means....I'll give you a hint: it's not the length of the rod. > > Right! The x in the LT is the POSITION of an event. x is the distance of the object (the rod) from the origin of the observer's coordinate system. >Here we are talking > about the POSITIONS of emissions and arrivals. For light traveling from > the left end of the rod to the right end of the rod, the POSITION of the > emission event is at x=0, and the POSITION of the arrival event is at > x=L. How can you dispute that??? > For light traveling from the right end of the rod to the left end of the > rod, the POSITION of the emission event is at x=L and the POSITION of > the arrival event is at x=0. How can you dispute that??? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 12:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlm388$ghh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387392 |
On 7/7/2016 11:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:24:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/7/2016 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> No idiot....you arbitrarily assigning different values for the two different directions to get different >>> transit times. That's not physics.....that's assertion. In any case you don't even know what the "x" in >>> the term (vx/c^2) in the LT equation means....I'll give you a hint: it's not the length of the rod. >> >> Right! The x in the LT is the POSITION of an event. > > x is the distance of the object (the rod) from the origin of the observer's coordinate system. That is incorrect. If you actually READ something about the Lorentz transforms, you will learn from those readings that x is not distance but POSITION or COORDINATE. > >> Here we are talking >> about the POSITIONS of emissions and arrivals. For light traveling from >> the left end of the rod to the right end of the rod, the POSITION of the >> emission event is at x=0, and the POSITION of the arrival event is at >> x=L. How can you dispute that??? >> For light traveling from the right end of the rod to the left end of the >> rod, the POSITION of the emission event is at x=L and the POSITION of >> the arrival event is at x=0. How can you dispute that??? >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-07-07 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29de0bf8-7ac0-4097-a9d4-a2c6b690c536@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387401 |
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/7/2016 11:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:24:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/7/2016 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> No idiot....you arbitrarily assigning different values for the two different directions to get different > >>> transit times. That's not physics.....that's assertion. In any case you don't even know what the "x" in > >>> the term (vx/c^2) in the LT equation means....I'll give you a hint: it's not the length of the rod. > >> > >> Right! The x in the LT is the POSITION of an event. > > > > x is the distance of the object (the rod) from the origin of the observer's coordinate system. > > That is incorrect. > If you actually READ something about the Lorentz transforms, you will > learn from those readings that x is not distance but POSITION or COORDINATE. Idiot the position or coordinate is the value of the distance from the origin. > > > >> Here we are talking > >> about the POSITIONS of emissions and arrivals. For light traveling from > >> the left end of the rod to the right end of the rod, the POSITION of the > >> emission event is at x=0, and the POSITION of the arrival event is at > >> x=L. How can you dispute that??? > >> For light traveling from the right end of the rod to the left end of the > >> rod, the POSITION of the emission event is at x=L and the POSITION of > >> the arrival event is at x=0. How can you dispute that??? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2016-07-08 04:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlna93$vne$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387418 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> If you actually READ something about the Lorentz transforms, you will >> learn from those readings that x is not distance but POSITION or COORDINATE. >Idiot the position or coordinate is the value of the distance from the >origin. Which is why if one beam of light starts out at the origin, the other beam of light, which starts at the other end of the rod with a length of L, starts at x=L. This is because its position at the start is a distance L from the origin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 05:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d36fbc83-1084-4eb9-a903-76330a698e6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387421 |
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:31:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> If you actually READ something about the Lorentz transforms, you will > >> learn from those readings that x is not distance but POSITION or COORDINATE. > > >Idiot the position or coordinate is the value of the distance from the > >origin. > > Which is why if one beam of light starts out at the origin, the other > beam of light, which starts at the other end of the rod with a length of > L, starts at x=L. This is because its position at the start is a distance > L from the origin. The rod has two sets of markings as follows: 1. One set from zero to 5m. 2. The other set from 5 meters to zero. If the right end observer chooses the zero to 5m markings as origin the left end observer must also chooses the zero to 5m markings as origin. No end is preferred.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlod3q$1ns$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387435 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:31:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> >> If you actually READ something about the Lorentz transforms, you will >> >> learn from those readings that x is not distance but POSITION or COORDINATE. >> >> >Idiot the position or coordinate is the value of the distance from the >> >origin. >> >> Which is why if one beam of light starts out at the origin, the other >> beam of light, which starts at the other end of the rod with a length of >> L, starts at x=L. This is because its position at the start is a distance >> L from the origin. >The rod has two sets of markings as follows: >1. One set from zero to 5m. >2. The other set from 5 meters to zero. Now you are changing the problem from what Odd described. He described a rod with a SINGLE set of markings, 0 meters on one end and 5 meters on the other. There are two walkers, one at the 0 meter end the other at the 5 meter end. Can you answer this trivial question? Where was the walker who was standing at the 5 meter end before walking, standing before walking? >No end is preferred. Yes, it is just as easy to select as the origin the other end of the rod as being 0, or the rod's midpoint, or any other point. It is arbitrary. Usually, the origin is chosen to make the math easier. In this case the math is easiest if you select one end of the rod as being 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3209a2be-17de-4734-9908-c5cffc9748f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387446 |
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:31:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >> >> If you actually READ something about the Lorentz transforms, you will > >> >> learn from those readings that x is not distance but POSITION or COORDINATE. > >> > >> >Idiot the position or coordinate is the value of the distance from the > >> >origin. > >> > >> Which is why if one beam of light starts out at the origin, the other > >> beam of light, which starts at the other end of the rod with a length of > >> L, starts at x=L. This is because its position at the start is a distance > >> L from the origin. > > >The rod has two sets of markings as follows: > >1. One set from zero to 5m. > >2. The other set from 5 meters to zero. > > Now you are changing the problem from what Odd described. > He described a rod with a SINGLE set of markings, 0 meters > on one end and 5 meters on the other. There are two walkers, > one at the 0 meter end the other at the 5 meter end. > > Can you answer this trivial question? Where was the walker who was standing > at the 5 meter end before walking, standing before walking? That's irrelevant....both walkers will take the same transit time to reach the other end. Arbitrarily label the emission point and arrival point differently have no effect on the transit time in both directions. > > >No end is preferred. > > Yes, it is just as easy to select as the origin the other end of the rod as > being 0, or the rod's midpoint, or any other point. It is arbitrary. > Usually, the origin is chosen to make the math easier. In this case the > math is easiest if you select one end of the rod as being 0. But your claim and PD's claim that labeling emission are arrival point differently will affect the transit time in different directions is patently false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlpq1v$gh8$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387475 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:31:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Which is why if one beam of light starts out at the origin, the other >> >> beam of light, which starts at the other end of the rod with a length of >> >> L, starts at x=L. This is because its position at the start is a distance >> >> L from the origin. >> >> >The rod has two sets of markings as follows: >> >1. One set from zero to 5m. >> >2. The other set from 5 meters to zero. >> >> Now you are changing the problem from what Odd described. >> He described a rod with a SINGLE set of markings, 0 meters >> on one end and 5 meters on the other. There are two walkers, >> one at the 0 meter end the other at the 5 meter end. What is your justification for changing the problem? >> Can you answer this trivial question? Where was the walker who was standing >> at the 5 meter end before walking, standing before walking? >That's irrelevant.... It is very relevant. You'll never get the correct answer to this problem if you don't even understand it! >both walkers will take the same transit time to reach the other end. We have to work out the problem and apply the LT to see if this is true in different frames. >Arbitrarily label the emission point and arrival point differently have >no effect on the transit time in both directions. But you do have to have a consistent frame to compare things. You want to create two entirely separate frames for the two walkers/ beams of light, but then you want to compare them as if they were one frame. You can't do that. >> >No end is preferred. >> >> Yes, it is just as easy to select as the origin the other end of the rod as >> being 0, or the rod's midpoint, or any other point. It is arbitrary. >> Usually, the origin is chosen to make the math easier. In this case the >> math is easiest if you select one end of the rod as being 0. >But your claim and PD's claim While PD has stuck his nose in here a few times, I haven't seen him comment on this thread, so "PD's claim" is bogus. > that labeling emission are arrival point differently will affect the > transit time in different directions is patently false. Assertion is not a valid argument. First we have to set up the two beams of light in one single (not two) frame. Then we have to apply the LT to see what happens in a different, relatively moving frame. As much as you wish to assert the answer, remember that assertion is not a valid argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web