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 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 05:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <883e36d9-e68d-45b6-9bdb-d4a8022b013b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387480 |
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:12:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > 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. idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the LT as follows: 1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions to be: Delta(T). 2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to the outside observer's frame as follows: Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma 3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict the transit times in the rod frame as follows: Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get different transit times in different directions. > > As much as you wish to assert the answer, remember that assertion is not a > valid argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 07:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d6dd8e6-1662-474f-9fa9-5360410a6088@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387484 |
El sábado, 9 de julio de 2016, 8:28:28 (UTC-4), kenseto escribió: > On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:12:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > 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. > > idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the LT as follows: > 1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions to be: Delta(T). > 2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to the outside observer's frame as follows: > Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma > 3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict the transit times in the rod frame as follows: > Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) > > There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get different transit times in different directions. > > > > > > > As much as you wish to assert the answer, remember that assertion is not a > > valid argument. This Seto character is so uterly dumb as to think that if he finds a $20 bill on the street is the same than losing a $20 bill on the street.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 03:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlsgsa$c0r$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387484 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:12:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> 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: >> >> 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? No answer to justifying changing the problem? >> 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. >idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the >LT as follows: >1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions > to be: Delta(T). Which rod frame observer, and observing in which frame? You set up two different reference frames, one for each beam of light. To do this problem correctly you have to use a single reference frame with a single observer observing both sets of events. >2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to >the outside observer's frame as follows: >Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma >3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict >the transit times in the rod frame as follows: >Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) Why would they do that? That is not the Lorenz transform, and predicts an incorrect answer. >There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get >different transit times in different directions. You have to choose a reference frame. Choose one that makes the math the easiest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 05:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6ac8124-07e8-4e9d-b253-87dc916a26b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387500 |
On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 11:54:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:12:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> 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: > > >> >> 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? > > No answer to justifying changing the problem? > >> 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. > > >idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the > >LT as follows: > >1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions > > to be: Delta(T). > > Which rod frame observer, and observing in which frame? You set up two > different reference frames, one for each beam of light. To do this > problem correctly you have to use a single reference frame with a single > observer observing both sets of events. Idiot.....there is only one rod frame observer. He measures the length of the rod to be L and knowing that the speed of light is isotropic c and therefore the transit time in both directions is Delta(T)=L/c > > >2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to > >the outside observer's frame as follows: > >Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma > >3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict > >the transit times in the rod frame as follows: > >Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) > > Why would they do that? That is not the Lorenz transform, and predicts an > incorrect answer. Idiot....that's the correct answer. > > >There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get > >different transit times in different directions. > > You have to choose a reference frame. Choose one that makes the math > the easiest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 08:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlti9g$2u6$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387484 |
On 7/9/2016 7:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the LT as follows: > 1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions to be: Delta(T). > 2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to the outside observer's frame as follows: > Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma > 3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict the transit times in the rod frame as follows: > Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) > > There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get different transit times in different directions. If you don't know how to do coordinates and you don't know how to properly do the math of the Lorentz transformations, which are COORDINATE transformations, then you have no business talking about SR. None whatsoever. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 04:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <977d4bb4-cfb6-4fae-9085-bc47ea5fdc0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387513 |
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:24:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/9/2016 7:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the LT as follows: > > 1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions to be: Delta(T). > > 2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to the outside observer's frame as follows: > > Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma > > 3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict the transit times in the rod frame as follows: > > Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) > > > > There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get different transit times in different directions. > > If you don't know how to do coordinates and you don't know how to > properly do the math of the Lorentz transformations, which are > COORDINATE transformations, then you have no business talking about SR. > None whatsoever. It is you who don't know how to do the math of LT.....in your example: left to right x=+5 meters from the origin and right to left x=-5 meters from the origin. Now when you insert these coordinate values into the LT you will get the same transit times for both directions. Gee you are stupid.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 07:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm04gr$1kl3$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387564 |
On 7/11/2016 6:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:24:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/9/2016 7:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the LT as follows: >>> 1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions to be: Delta(T). >>> 2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to the outside observer's frame as follows: >>> Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma >>> 3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict the transit times in the rod frame as follows: >>> Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) >>> >>> There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get different transit times in different directions. >> >> If you don't know how to do coordinates and you don't know how to >> properly do the math of the Lorentz transformations, which are >> COORDINATE transformations, then you have no business talking about SR. >> None whatsoever. > > It is you who don't know how to do the math of LT.....in your example: left to right x=+5 meters from the origin > and right to left x=-5 meters from the origin. Nope, Ken, that's wrong. You're not using simple coordinates correctly. This is 5th grade math. > Now when you insert these coordinate values into the LT you will get the same transit times for both directions. > Gee you are stupid..... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <457a3f1e-6ace-45b6-8b70-8b15eb6ce960@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387567 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:47:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 6:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:24:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/9/2016 7:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the LT as follows: > >>> 1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions to be: Delta(T). > >>> 2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to the outside observer's frame as follows: > >>> Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma > >>> 3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict the transit times in the rod frame as follows: > >>> Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) > >>> > >>> There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get different transit times in different directions. > >> > >> If you don't know how to do coordinates and you don't know how to > >> properly do the math of the Lorentz transformations, which are > >> COORDINATE transformations, then you have no business talking about SR. > >> None whatsoever. > > > > It is you who don't know how to do the math of LT.....in your example: left to right x=+5 meters from the origin > > and right to left x=-5 meters from the origin. > > Nope, Ken, that's wrong. You're not using simple coordinates correctly. > This is 5th grade math. Nope it is correct. The coordinates of x is +/- 5 meter from the origin. > > > Now when you insert these coordinate values into the LT you will get the same transit times for both directions. > > Gee you are stupid..... > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm0a37$1usc$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387572 |
On 7/11/2016 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:47:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 6:56 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:24:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2016 7:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the LT as follows: >>>>> 1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions to be: Delta(T). >>>>> 2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to the outside observer's frame as follows: >>>>> Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma >>>>> 3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict the transit times in the rod frame as follows: >>>>> Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) >>>>> >>>>> There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get different transit times in different directions. >>>> >>>> If you don't know how to do coordinates and you don't know how to >>>> properly do the math of the Lorentz transformations, which are >>>> COORDINATE transformations, then you have no business talking about SR. >>>> None whatsoever. >>> >>> It is you who don't know how to do the math of LT.....in your example: left to right x=+5 meters from the origin >>> and right to left x=-5 meters from the origin. >> >> Nope, Ken, that's wrong. You're not using simple coordinates correctly. >> This is 5th grade math. > > Nope it is correct. The coordinates of x is +/- 5 meter from the origin. Nope, Ken, that's not correct. You have misused 5th grade math. If you can't do 5th grade math to set coordinates, then you aren't going to be able to follow SR. > >> >>> Now when you insert these coordinate values into the LT you will get the same transit times for both directions. >>> Gee you are stupid..... >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-07-11 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b579a6df-9398-4d27-9009-14ebf7bf0758@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387575 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:22:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:47:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/11/2016 6:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:24:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/9/2016 7:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> idiot...get rid of the coordinate system and use the delta form of the LT as follows: > >>>>> 1. the rod frame observer measures the transit time in both directions to be: Delta(T). > >>>>> 2. He uses the delta form of the LT and transform this time interval to the outside observer's frame as follows: > >>>>> Delta(T'_outside)=Delta(T_rod)/gamma > >>>>> 3. The outside observer can also use the delta form of the LT to predict the transit times in the rod frame as follows: > >>>>> Delta(T'_rod)=Gamma*Delta(T_outside) > >>>>> > >>>>> There is no artificially labeling the emission and arrival points to get different transit times in different directions. > >>>> > >>>> If you don't know how to do coordinates and you don't know how to > >>>> properly do the math of the Lorentz transformations, which are > >>>> COORDINATE transformations, then you have no business talking about SR. > >>>> None whatsoever. > >>> > >>> It is you who don't know how to do the math of LT.....in your example: left to right x=+5 meters from the origin > >>> and right to left x=-5 meters from the origin. > >> > >> Nope, Ken, that's wrong. You're not using simple coordinates correctly. > >> This is 5th grade math. > > > > Nope it is correct. The coordinates of x is +/- 5 meter from the origin. > > Nope, Ken, that's not correct. You have misused 5th grade math. > If you can't do 5th grade math to set coordinates, then you aren't going > to be able to follow SR. Yes PD that's correct....your ranting demonstrated your failure to understand SR and 5th grade math on coordinate system. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 07:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlo6sv$139r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387418 |
On 7/7/2016 7:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > 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. That's right. And in the case of the rod, the LEFT end was placed at the origin, not the right end. But when I asked you the question about walking from one end to the other, you said the starting position was x=0 whether the person who was walking was starting from the right end or from the left end. Only the person who starts at the left end is the one that has x=0 when starting. The person who starts at the right end has x=L when starting because he's a distance L from the origin. Duh. Get a grip, Ken. > >>> >>>> 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 > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 05:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c06520dc-9122-4c44-aa03-0e117c600efd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387434 |
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/7/2016 7:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > > 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. > > That's right. So you were wrong saying that x is not a distance....Right? > And in the case of the rod, the LEFT end was placed at the > origin, not the right end. The rod has two sets of markings....one from zero to 5m and the other from 5m to zero. Both observer must use the same set of marking to start out. > But when I asked you the question about walking from one end to the > other, you said the starting position was x=0 whether the person who was > walking was starting from the right end or from the left end. Only the > person who starts at the left end is the one that has x=0 when starting. > The person who starts at the right end has x=L when starting because > he's a distance L from the origin. > > Duh. > > Get a grip, Ken. > > > > >>> > >>>> 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 > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 06:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f0522c4-39b8-47c2-ba40-60853f24d989@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387441 |
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 6:48:30 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > So you were wrong saying that x is not a distance....Right? It's a distance from the origin of the coordinate system. Saying it's a "distance" just obfuscation. > The rod has two sets of markings....one from zero to 5m and the other > from 5m to zero. Both observer must use the same set of marking to start out. Oh really? When did you decide to invent this particular obfuscation? It's redundant and confusing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 08:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlobkc$1b00$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387441 |
On 7/8/2016 7:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/7/2016 7:54 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> 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. >> >> That's right. > > So you were wrong saying that x is not a distance....Right? I agreed that position is a distance from an origin. x is not distance TRAVELED. Do you understand the difference between position and displacement? > >> And in the case of the rod, the LEFT end was placed at the >> origin, not the right end. > > The rod has two sets of markings....one from zero to 5m and the other from > 5m to zero. Both observer must use the same set of marking to start out. Ken, there is ONE rod. There is ONE set of marks on it. One end has the 0 m mark, the other end has the 5 m mark. When I'm standing at the end that has the 5 m mark, my position is at x=5m because the origin is at the OTHER end, where the 0 m mark is. I utterly cannot believe you are attempting to argue about coordinate systems. This is 6th grade math. > >> But when I asked you the question about walking from one end to the >> other, you said the starting position was x=0 whether the person who was >> walking was starting from the right end or from the left end. Only the >> person who starts at the left end is the one that has x=0 when starting. >> The person who starts at the right end has x=L when starting because >> he's a distance L from the origin. >> >> Duh. >> >> Get a grip, Ken. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlogjh$lat$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387445 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >I utterly cannot believe you are attempting to argue about coordinate >systems. This is 6th grade math. Yes, it's funny watching my kid advancing through the grades, and in the process leaving Ken in the dust. At one point a while ago, when helping her with her homework, I was amused that one of her problems was actually (-6)/(-2), the very same problem that Ken never could solve for years now. (My kid got it correct) And she fully understands the number line and 2 dimensional Cartesian coordinates, and would easily understand what it means to walk from x=5 meters to x=0 meters, and the difference between that and walking from x=0 meters to x=5 meters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 14:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72c147c3-534a-47f3-bf52-d323a6d8bc72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387445 |
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:59:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/8/2016 7:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/7/2016 7:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> That's right. > > > > So you were wrong saying that x is not a distance....Right? > > I agreed that position is a distance from an origin. > x is not distance TRAVELED. I didn't say that x is distance travelled. I said that distance is the distance of object from the origin. > > Do you understand the difference between position and displacement? do you???? > > > > >> And in the case of the rod, the LEFT end was placed at the > >> origin, not the right end. > > > > The rod has two sets of markings....one from zero to 5m and the other from > > 5m to zero. Both observer must use the same set of marking to start out. > > Ken, there is ONE rod. There is ONE set of marks on it. One end has the > 0 m mark, the other end has the 5 m mark. > > When I'm standing at the end that has the 5 m mark, my position is at > x=5m because the origin is at the OTHER end, where the 0 m mark is. Look idiot...if I standing face to face with you, My left is your right and your left is my right. What this mean is that your claim that arbitrarily assigning different coordinate values for point of emission and arrival will affect the transit time for light in different directions is a bunch of baloney. > > I utterly cannot believe you are attempting to argue about coordinate > systems. This is 6th grade math. > > > > >> But when I asked you the question about walking from one end to the > >> other, you said the starting position was x=0 whether the person who was > >> walking was starting from the right end or from the left end. Only the > >> person who starts at the left end is the one that has x=0 when starting. > >> The person who starts at the right end has x=L when starting because > >> he's a distance L from the origin. > >> > >> Duh. > >> > >> Get a grip, Ken. > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2016-07-10 08:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlti6i$2u6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387474 |
On 7/8/2016 4:58 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:59:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/8/2016 7:48 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/7/2016 7:54 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> That's right. >>> >>> So you were wrong saying that x is not a distance....Right? >> >> I agreed that position is a distance from an origin. >> x is not distance TRAVELED. > > I didn't say that x is distance travelled. I said that distance is the distance of object from the origin. And when the origin is at the LEFT end of the rod, you said the x-position of someone standing at the RIGHT end of a 5m long rod was x=0. Idiot much? > >> >> Do you understand the difference between position and displacement? > > do you???? >> >>> >>>> And in the case of the rod, the LEFT end was placed at the >>>> origin, not the right end. >>> >>> The rod has two sets of markings....one from zero to 5m and the other from >>> 5m to zero. Both observer must use the same set of marking to start out. >> >> Ken, there is ONE rod. There is ONE set of marks on it. One end has the >> 0 m mark, the other end has the 5 m mark. >> >> When I'm standing at the end that has the 5 m mark, my position is at >> x=5m because the origin is at the OTHER end, where the 0 m mark is. > > Look idiot...if I standing face to face with you, My left is your right > and your left is my right. What this mean is that your claim that arbitrarily > assigning different coordinate values for point of emission and arrival will > affect the transit time for light in different directions is a bunch of baloney. ???? If you don't know how to do coordinates, what on earth are you trying to do with the Lorentz COORDINATE transformations? >> >> I utterly cannot believe you are attempting to argue about coordinate >> systems. This is 6th grade math. >> >>> >>>> But when I asked you the question about walking from one end to the >>>> other, you said the starting position was x=0 whether the person who was >>>> walking was starting from the right end or from the left end. Only the >>>> person who starts at the left end is the one that has x=0 when starting. >>>> The person who starts at the right end has x=L when starting because >>>> he's a distance L from the origin. >>>> >>>> Duh. >>>> >>>> Get a grip, Ken. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | 2016-07-11 04:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e887c92e-e301-43bd-907f-2b10b0ccb54c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387512 |
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:22:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/8/2016 4:58 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:59:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/8/2016 7:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/7/2016 7:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> That's right. > >>> > >>> So you were wrong saying that x is not a distance....Right? > >> > >> I agreed that position is a distance from an origin. > >> x is not distance TRAVELED. > > > > I didn't say that x is distance travelled. I said that distance is the distance of object from the origin. > > And when the origin is at the LEFT end of the rod, you said the > x-position of someone standing at the RIGHT end of a 5m long rod was x=0. Idiot....if you want to use the coordinate system you need to make sure that both directions are started from the origin. For example: left to right x=+5 meters and right to left x=-5 meters. Now substitute these x values into the LT you will get the same transit time for both directions. It appears that you are the one who don't know how the coordinate system in the LT works. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 07:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm04f7$1kl3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387563 |
On 7/11/2016 6:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:22:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/8/2016 4:58 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:59:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/8/2016 7:48 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/7/2016 7:54 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's right. >>>>> >>>>> So you were wrong saying that x is not a distance....Right? >>>> >>>> I agreed that position is a distance from an origin. >>>> x is not distance TRAVELED. >>> >>> I didn't say that x is distance travelled. I said that distance is the distance of object from the origin. >> >> And when the origin is at the LEFT end of the rod, you said the >> x-position of someone standing at the RIGHT end of a 5m long rod was x=0. > > Idiot....if you want to use the coordinate system you need to make sure that both directions are started > from the origin. No, you don't. Good grief, Ken. First you don't know fifth grade math. Then you make up things like this. > For example: left to right x=+5 meters and right to left x=-5 meters. Again, you confused POSITION with DISPLACEMENT. x is a POSITION, not a DISPLACEMENT. If you don't know the difference, you could always look at a high school physics text to learn that difference. > Now substitute these > x values into the LT you will get the same transit time for both directions. It appears that you are the > one who don't know how the coordinate system in the LT works. Gee you are stupid. > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 06:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ef109c1-3636-4e71-b886-530e76cd087a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387566 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:46:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 6:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:22:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/8/2016 4:58 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:59:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/8/2016 7:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/7/2016 7:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's right. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you were wrong saying that x is not a distance....Right? > >>>> > >>>> I agreed that position is a distance from an origin. > >>>> x is not distance TRAVELED. > >>> > >>> I didn't say that x is distance travelled. I said that distance is the distance of object from the origin. > >> > >> And when the origin is at the LEFT end of the rod, you said the > >> x-position of someone standing at the RIGHT end of a 5m long rod was x=0. > > > > Idiot....if you want to use the coordinate system you need to make sure that both directions are started > > from the origin. > > No, you don't. > Good grief, Ken. First you don't know fifth grade math. > Then you make up things like this. > > > For example: left to right x=+5 meters and right to left x=-5 meters. > > Again, you confused POSITION with DISPLACEMENT. x is a POSITION, not a > DISPLACEMENT. If you don't know the difference, you could always look at > a high school physics text to learn that difference. No idiot....what I said is not displacement, x is a position from the origin. > > > Now substitute these > > x values into the LT you will get the same transit time for both directions. It appears that you are the > > one who don't know how the coordinate system in the LT works. Gee you are stupid. > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web