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 10 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 19 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 09:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm0a11$1usc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387571 |
On 7/11/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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. Ken, Ken, Ken. There is a rod that is 5m long. The left end of the rod is placed at the origin. Here are some simple questions for you. In this coordinate system, 1. What portion of the rod is at x=0m? 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? > > >> >>> 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 -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0b02e76-e78a-4c0a-8bec-70d4cb68b403@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387574 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:21:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > > 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. > > Ken, Ken, Ken. > There is a rod that is 5m long. The left end of the rod is placed at the > origin. > > Here are some simple questions for you. > In this coordinate system, > 1. What portion of the rod is at x=0m? The left end is at the origin.....so x=0 > 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m > 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m > > > > > > >> > >>> 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 > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 08:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm2rc5$1mkk$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387615 |
On 7/11/2016 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >> 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? > The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m > >> > 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? > The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m LOL. Ken, you have the weirdest brain. I can't believe you think this makes sense. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 15:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <846584ca-69f0-4cf0-829f-9f717129b468@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387640 |
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:29:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >> 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? > > The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m > > > >> > 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? > > The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m > > LOL. > > Ken, you have the weirdest brain. > > I can't believe you think this makes sense. What does not make sense is your claim that different transit times for light rays in the opposite directions and at the same time claiming that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames of reference. Also it seems that you have no clue how to apply the correct signs to the coordinates of different directions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 08:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm5gal$1jm4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387663 |
On 7/12/2016 5:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:29:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? >>> The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m >>> >>>>> 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? >>> The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m >> >> LOL. >> >> Ken, you have the weirdest brain. >> >> I can't believe you think this makes sense. > > What does not make sense is your claim that different transit times for light rays > in the opposite directions and at the same time claiming that the speed of light is > isotropic in all frames of reference. I've shown you the correct Lorentz transforms. I've also shown you the correct quantities to substitute into the variables of those transforms and even told you what the variables mean, because you didn't know before. I also told you the steps to take to calculate the transit times for light going in both directions. You are unable to do the simple algebra to follow those steps. If you were able to follow those steps you would see that the transit times are different. It doesn't MATTER that this result makes no sense to you. > Also it seems that you have no clue how to apply the correct signs to the coordinates > of different directions. LOL, Ken. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 04:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eaec7e02-4b9c-4fac-ab39-96022fb0b060@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387685 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:39:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/12/2016 5:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:29:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/11/2016 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? > >>> The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m > >>> > >>>>> 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? > >>> The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m > >> > >> LOL. > >> > >> Ken, you have the weirdest brain. > >> > >> I can't believe you think this makes sense. > > > > What does not make sense is your claim that different transit times for light rays > > in the opposite directions and at the same time claiming that the speed of light is > > isotropic in all frames of reference. > > I've shown you the correct Lorentz transforms. I've also shown you the > correct quantities to substitute into the variables of those transforms > and even told you what the variables mean, because you didn't know > before. I also told you the steps to take to calculate the transit times > for light going in both directions. You are unable to do the simple > algebra to follow those steps. If you were able to follow those steps > you would see that the transit times are different. It doesn't MATTER > that this result makes no sense to you.value for the The problem is that you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going from right to left and left to right. That's why you get different transit times. If you assign the correct values and signs for the coordinates going at different directions, you will get the same transit time for both directions. > > > Also it seems that you have no clue how to apply the correct signs to the coordinates > > of different directions. > > LOL, Ken. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm87c2$1d4s$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387740 |
On 7/14/2016 6:15 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:39:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/12/2016 5:19 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:29:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/11/2016 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? >>>>> The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m >>>>> >>>>>>> 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? >>>>> The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m >>>> >>>> LOL. >>>> >>>> Ken, you have the weirdest brain. >>>> >>>> I can't believe you think this makes sense. >>> >>> What does not make sense is your claim that different transit times for light rays >>> in the opposite directions and at the same time claiming that the speed of light is >>> isotropic in all frames of reference. >> >> I've shown you the correct Lorentz transforms. I've also shown you the >> correct quantities to substitute into the variables of those transforms >> and even told you what the variables mean, because you didn't know >> before. I also told you the steps to take to calculate the transit times >> for light going in both directions. You are unable to do the simple >> algebra to follow those steps. If you were able to follow those steps >> you would see that the transit times are different. It doesn't MATTER >> that this result makes no sense to you.value for the > > The problem is that you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going from > right to left and left to right. That's why you get different transit times. I really don't think so. The coordinates I gave are correct. Ask six people to see if they agree with me or with you. How many people would it take agreeing with me and disagreeing with you would it take before you would consider the possibility that you have made a mistake? > If you assign the correct values and signs for the coordinates going at different directions, > you will get the same transit time for both directions. I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. > > >> >>> Also it seems that you have no clue how to apply the correct signs to the coordinates >>> of different directions. >> >> LOL, Ken. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 23:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6f5109e-fe3c-4848-b607-099a5dc4a028@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387754 |
W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 16:25:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > The problem is that you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going from > > right to left and left to right. That's why you get different transit times. > > I really don't think so. You're a poor idiot. > The coordinates I gave are correct. Ask six > people to see if they agree with me or with you. How many people would > it take agreeing with me and disagreeing with you would it take before > you would consider the possibility that you have made a mistake? Ask 6 people. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second ? How many people would it take agreeing with me and disagreeing with you would it take before you would consider the possibility that you have made a mistake?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06e0af09-bacc-4b8d-a4d3-0316002c7a8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387754 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:25:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/14/2016 6:15 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:39:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/12/2016 5:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:29:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/11/2016 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? > >>>>> The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m > >>>>> > >>>>>>> 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? > >>>>> The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m > >>>> > >>>> LOL. > >>>> > >>>> Ken, you have the weirdest brain. > >>>> > >>>> I can't believe you think this makes sense. > >>> > >>> What does not make sense is your claim that different transit times for light rays > >>> in the opposite directions and at the same time claiming that the speed of light is > >>> isotropic in all frames of reference. > >> > >> I've shown you the correct Lorentz transforms. I've also shown you the > >> correct quantities to substitute into the variables of those transforms > >> and even told you what the variables mean, because you didn't know > >> before. I also told you the steps to take to calculate the transit times > >> for light going in both directions. You are unable to do the simple > >> algebra to follow those steps. If you were able to follow those steps > >> you would see that the transit times are different. It doesn't MATTER > >> that this result makes no sense to you.value for the > > > > The problem is that you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going from > > right to left and left to right. That's why you get different transit times. > > I really don't think so. The coordinates I gave are correct. No you didn't.....you ignored the different signs for the different directions. Ask six > people to see if they agree with me or with you. How many people would > it take agreeing with me and disagreeing with you would it take before > you would consider the possibility that you have made a mistake? > > > If you assign the correct values and signs for the coordinates going at different directions, > > you will get the same transit time for both directions. > > I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do > the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and > see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left and put this into the LT you will get the same answer....the resulting answer with the minus sign shows the direction of the light ray.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmaujv$1e49$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387819 |
On 7/15/2016 9:43 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:25:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/14/2016 6:15 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:39:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2016 5:19 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:29:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/11/2016 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? >>>>>>> The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? >>>>>>> The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, you have the weirdest brain. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't believe you think this makes sense. >>>>> >>>>> What does not make sense is your claim that different transit times for light rays >>>>> in the opposite directions and at the same time claiming that the speed of light is >>>>> isotropic in all frames of reference. >>>> >>>> I've shown you the correct Lorentz transforms. I've also shown you the >>>> correct quantities to substitute into the variables of those transforms >>>> and even told you what the variables mean, because you didn't know >>>> before. I also told you the steps to take to calculate the transit times >>>> for light going in both directions. You are unable to do the simple >>>> algebra to follow those steps. If you were able to follow those steps >>>> you would see that the transit times are different. It doesn't MATTER >>>> that this result makes no sense to you.value for the >>> >>> The problem is that you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going from >>> right to left and left to right. That's why you get different transit times. >> >> I really don't think so. The coordinates I gave are correct. > > No you didn't.....you ignored the different signs for the different directions. > > Ask six >> people to see if they agree with me or with you. How many people would >> it take agreeing with me and disagreeing with you would it take before >> you would consider the possibility that you have made a mistake? >> >>> If you assign the correct values and signs for the coordinates going at different directions, >>> you will get the same transit time for both directions. >> >> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do >> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and >> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. > > If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left > and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. >...the resulting answer with the minus sign shows the direction of the light ray. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62e6c3bd-8786-4a04-ac0c-f7842943b2a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387823 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:14:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 9:43 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:25:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/14/2016 6:15 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:39:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/12/2016 5:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:29:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/11/2016 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> 2. What portion of the rod is at x=5m? > >>>>>>> The right end is 5m left to right from the origin so it is at x=+5m > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. What portion of the rod is at x=-5m? > >>>>>>> The right end is right to left to the origin so its coordinate is x=-5m > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LOL. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken, you have the weirdest brain. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I can't believe you think this makes sense. > >>>>> > >>>>> What does not make sense is your claim that different transit times for light rays > >>>>> in the opposite directions and at the same time claiming that the speed of light is > >>>>> isotropic in all frames of reference. > >>>> > >>>> I've shown you the correct Lorentz transforms. I've also shown you the > >>>> correct quantities to substitute into the variables of those transforms > >>>> and even told you what the variables mean, because you didn't know > >>>> before. I also told you the steps to take to calculate the transit times > >>>> for light going in both directions. You are unable to do the simple > >>>> algebra to follow those steps. If you were able to follow those steps > >>>> you would see that the transit times are different. It doesn't MATTER > >>>> that this result makes no sense to you.value for the > >>> > >>> The problem is that you assigned the wrong values and signs for the coordinates going from > >>> right to left and left to right. That's why you get different transit times. > >> > >> I really don't think so. The coordinates I gave are correct. > > > > No you didn't.....you ignored the different signs for the different directions. > > > > Ask six > >> people to see if they agree with me or with you. How many people would > >> it take agreeing with me and disagreeing with you would it take before > >> you would consider the possibility that you have made a mistake? > >> > >>> If you assign the correct values and signs for the coordinates going at different directions, > >>> you will get the same transit time for both directions. > >> > >> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do > >> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and > >> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. > > > > If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left > > and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. > > No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. > > >...the resulting answer with the minus sign shows the direction of the light ray. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 15:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmbi3r$d9q$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387838 |
On 7/15/2016 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> > >> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do >>>> > >> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and >>>> > >> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. >>> > > >>> > > If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left >>> > > and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. >> > >> > No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. > Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. > Assertion is not an argument. Prove your assertion that you get the same answer by doing the math. Otherwise, it's just an empty assertion. (Calling your bluff. You know you can't do it. I know you can't do it. Everyone knows you can't do it.) -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmblk6$ba0$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387842 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 7/15/2016 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> > >> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do >>>>> > >> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and >>>>> > >> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. >>>> > > >>>> > > If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left >>>> > > and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. >>> > >>> > No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. >> Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. >> >Assertion is not an argument. Prove your assertion that you get the same >answer by doing the math. Otherwise, it's just an empty assertion. >(Calling your bluff. You know you can't do it. I know you can't do it. >Everyone knows you can't do it.) Nope, he can't do it. We know that because h can't even do (-6)/(-2).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14e432a4-4baa-4d99-97c7-6ad85c5ed37d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387848 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:47:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > > >On 7/15/2016 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> > >> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do > >>>>> > >> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and > >>>>> > >> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left > >>>> > > and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. > >>> > > >>> > No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. > >> Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. > >> > > >Assertion is not an argument. Prove your assertion that you get the same > >answer by doing the math. Otherwise, it's just an empty assertion. > > >(Calling your bluff. You know you can't do it. I know you can't do it. > >Everyone knows you can't do it.) > > Nope, he can't do it. We know that because h can't even do (-6)/(-2). We know that you are a moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ea79c9e-7a93-40a1-bde6-1e62d3686b2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387868 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 8:07:01 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > We know that you are a moron. Is that a royal "we" or does Ken have a mouse in his pocket? For sure we know that Ken is a moron, and anyone with a brain knows that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 02:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmerm0$q79$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387868 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:47:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >On 7/15/2016 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> > No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. >> >> Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. >> >> >Assertion is not an argument. Prove your assertion that you get the same >> >answer by doing the math. Otherwise, it's just an empty assertion. >> >> >(Calling your bluff. You know you can't do it. I know you can't do it. >> >Everyone knows you can't do it.) >> >> Nope, he can't do it. We know that because h can't even do (-6)/(-2). >We know that you are a moron. "We" Ken? You are just one person with that opinion. And of course, you proved Odd's and my predictions. You did not do the 5th grade algebra that Odd knew you could not do. And of course, you did not solve (-6)/(-2) which I knew you could not do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 05:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88baffa5-e205-437c-a0b1-252bc8d9bb98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387842 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:46:55 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do > >>>> > >> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and > >>>> > >> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. > >>> > > > >>> > > If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left > >>> > > and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. > >> > > >> > No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. > > Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. > > > > Assertion is not an argument. Prove your assertion that you get the same > answer by doing the math. Otherwise, it's just an empty assertion. > > (Calling your bluff. You know you can't do it. I know you can't do it. > Everyone knows you can't do it.) I'll give you the following correct equations for each direction. That's more than you ever gave me when you ask me to do a problem.....most of the time you asked me to go and read a book. Transit time left to right: Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)) Transit time right to left: Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(-5/c)-v(-5)/c^2)) Now a 5th grader can see that both directions gave the same answer for transit time....can you see that??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 12:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmds8t$17te$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387863 |
On 7/16/2016 7:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:46:55 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/15/2016 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do >>>>>>>>> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and >>>>>>>>> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left >>>>>>> and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. >>>>> >>>>> No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. >>> Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. >>> >> >> Assertion is not an argument. Prove your assertion that you get the same >> answer by doing the math. Otherwise, it's just an empty assertion. >> >> (Calling your bluff. You know you can't do it. I know you can't do it. >> Everyone knows you can't do it.) > > I'll give you the following correct equations for each direction. That's more > than you ever gave me when you ask me to do a problem.....most of the time you > asked me to go and read a book. Those are not the right equations. I gave you the right equations. You can substitute the quantities you want into those correct equations. > Transit time left to right: > Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)) > Transit time right to left: > Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(-5/c)-v(-5)/c^2)) > > Now a 5th grader can see that both directions gave the same answer for transit time....can you see that?? Those do NOT give the same answer. First of all, how much (in seconds) is Delta(5/c)? I know how to find (5m/c), but how much is Delta(5/c)? Secondly do you believe that Delta(5/c) = Delta(-5/c)? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0d01224-d263-4610-970c-0b6610bc0647@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387880 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 1:52:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/16/2016 7:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:46:55 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/15/2016 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do > >>>>>>>>> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and > >>>>>>>>> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left > >>>>>>> and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. > >>>>> > >>>>> No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. > >>> Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. > >>> > >> > >> Assertion is not an argument. Prove your assertion that you get the same > >> answer by doing the math. Otherwise, it's just an empty assertion. > >> > >> (Calling your bluff. You know you can't do it. I know you can't do it. > >> Everyone knows you can't do it.) > > > > I'll give you the following correct equations for each direction. That's more > > than you ever gave me when you ask me to do a problem.....most of the time you > > asked me to go and read a book. > > Those are not the right equations. I gave you the right equations. You > can substitute the quantities you want into those correct equations. > > > Transit time left to right: > > Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)) > > Transit time right to left: > > Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(-5/c)-v(-5)/c^2)) > > > > Now a 5th grader can see that both directions gave the same answer for transit time....can you see that?? > > Those do NOT give the same answer. > > First of all, how much (in seconds) is Delta(5/c)? I know how to find > (5m/c), but how much is Delta(5/c)? It is understood that we were talking about 5m. > > Secondly do you believe that Delta(5/c) = Delta(-5/c)? Yes equal but in the opposite directions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 16:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nme9u9$1qos$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387887 |
On 7/16/2016 1:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 1:52:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/16/2016 7:05 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:46:55 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/15/2016 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I really don't think so, even using YOUR choices. But feel free to do >>>>>>>>>>> the substitutions you think should go it and then follow the steps and >>>>>>>>>>> see what you get. You're not going to get the same transit times. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you put a minus sign in front of the 5 meters for light going from right to left >>>>>>>>> and put this into the LT you will get the same answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No you won't. Prove it by doing the algebra. You'll see. >>>>> Yes you will.....do the algebra, a 5th grader can do it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Assertion is not an argument. Prove your assertion that you get the same >>>> answer by doing the math. Otherwise, it's just an empty assertion. >>>> >>>> (Calling your bluff. You know you can't do it. I know you can't do it. >>>> Everyone knows you can't do it.) >>> >>> I'll give you the following correct equations for each direction. That's more >>> than you ever gave me when you ask me to do a problem.....most of the time you >>> asked me to go and read a book. >> >> Those are not the right equations. I gave you the right equations. You >> can substitute the quantities you want into those correct equations. >> >>> Transit time left to right: >>> Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(5/c)-v*5/c^2)) >>> Transit time right to left: >>> Delta(T')=gamma((Delta(-5/c)-v(-5)/c^2)) >>> >>> Now a 5th grader can see that both directions gave the same answer for transit time....can you see that?? >> >> Those do NOT give the same answer. >> >> First of all, how much (in seconds) is Delta(5/c)? I know how to find >> (5m/c), but how much is Delta(5/c)? > > It is understood that we were talking about 5m. OK, so 5 m/c = (5 m)/(3E8 m/s) = 1.7E-8 s. So what's Delta(5m/c)? >> >> Secondly do you believe that Delta(5/c) = Delta(-5/c)? > > Yes equal but in the opposite directions. > -5m/c is -1.7E-8s. That's a NEGATIVE time of traversal, which means that it arrived before it was emitted. Are you claiming that a NEGATIVE time of traversal means a positive time of traversal from right to left? So you're saying that if I want to go from St. Louis to Kansas City (right to left on the map), it should take me NEGATIVE 3.5 hours to drive? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web