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 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nldh10$1u13$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387162 |
On 04/07/16 19:27, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/07/2016 6:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> You're asserting that they advance by the same amount in all >> frames. You haven't proved that. >> >> Sylvia. >> > > I think I'll expand on that. There's no disputing the amount they > advance in the frame of the rod. The question is whether they do all > that advancing during the transit of the pulses in the frame of the > moving observer, or indeed, whether they continued to advance for > the full period of the transit in the frame of the moving observer. I understand your skepticism about this..but as I said above, it is theoretically possible to connect a long wire between each rod clock and the moving clock in order to tell it when to start and stop. That would ensure that the moving clock advanced by the same amount during the opposite transits since that is what the rod clocks do. It doesn't matter what the times actually are. The fact that they are the same is enough to render Einstein's postulate logically impossible. > Sylvia. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dtuvq6F2u8cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387171 |
On 4/07/2016 9:24 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/07/16 19:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/07/2016 6:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> >>> You're asserting that they advance by the same amount in all >>> frames. You haven't proved that. >>> >>> Sylvia. >>> >> >> I think I'll expand on that. There's no disputing the amount they >> advance in the frame of the rod. The question is whether they do all >> that advancing during the transit of the pulses in the frame of the >> moving observer, or indeed, whether they continued to advance for >> the full period of the transit in the frame of the moving observer. > > I understand your skepticism about this..but as I said above, it is > theoretically possible to connect a long wire between each rod clock > and the moving clock in order to tell it when to start and stop. That > would ensure that the moving clock advanced by the same amount during > the opposite transits since that is what the rod clocks do. > It doesn't matter what the times actually are. The fact that they are > the same is enough to render Einstein's postulate logically impossible. > >> Sylvia. >> >> > See my other response to this proposition. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 13:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nldnho$lp4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387171 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 04/07/16 19:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >> I think I'll expand on that. There's no disputing the amount they >> advance in the frame of the rod. The question is whether they do all >> that advancing during the transit of the pulses in the frame of the >> moving observer, or indeed, whether they continued to advance for >> the full period of the transit in the frame of the moving observer. >I understand your skepticism about this..but as I said above, it is >theoretically possible to connect a long wire between each rod clock >and the moving clock in order to tell it when to start and stop. Be careful, Ralph, because now you have to account for the time the signal takes to transit the cable. And for relatively moving objects connected by a cable, does the length of the cable change as the object moves? If so you have to account for the variable time the signal takes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlepf5$6ph$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387195 |
On 04/07/16 23:15, Michael Moron-y wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >> I understand your skepticism about this..but as I said above, it is >> theoretically possible to connect a long wire between each rod clock >> and the moving clock in order to tell it when to start and stop. > > Be careful, Henry, because now you have to account for the time the signal > takes to transit the cable. And for relatively moving objects connected > by a cable, does the length of the cable change as the object moves? If > so you have to account for the variable time the signal takes. well just use radio. Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known to be simultaneous also. Even you should be able to understand that, moron-y.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 09:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <du0bg9F89vkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387206 |
On 5/07/2016 8:54 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/07/16 23:15, Michael Moron-y wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >>> I understand your skepticism about this..but as I said above, it is >>> theoretically possible to connect a long wire between each rod clock >>> and the moving clock in order to tell it when to start and stop. >> >> Be careful, Henry, because now you have to account for the time the >> signal >> takes to transit the cable. And for relatively moving objects connected >> by a cable, does the length of the cable change as the object moves? If >> so you have to account for the variable time the signal takes. > > well just use radio. Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's > midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known > to be simultaneous also. If you use radio, you still have to account for the propagation times, which begs the question of how fast the signals propagate in the frame of the observer, given that you're not accepting constancy of speed for electromagnetic waves. Sending the start times from the midpoint doesn't work, because now there's a question as to whether the the signals are sent from there simultaneously with the emission of the pulses in the frame of the moving observer. That's something you'd need to prove. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 02:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlf6at$3at$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387206 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>On 04/07/16 23:15, Michael Moron-y wrote:
>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>> Be careful, Henry,
######
# # ## # ##### # #
# # # # # # # # #
###### # # # # # ######
# # ###### # ##### # #
# # # # # # # #
# # # # ###### # # #
# #
## ## ## # #### #### # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # # ## ##
# # # # # # # # # # # ## #
# # ###### # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # ###### #### #### ###### # #
######
# # ## ##### ##### # ##### #### ######
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
###### # # ##### ##### # # # # #####
# # ###### # # # # # # # # ### # ###
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # ###
# # # # ##### ##### # ##### #### ###### #
#
you really are much stupider than I ever thought possible, Ralph. Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge, for some reason you seem to be embarrassed by your name
(which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge), Ralph. So why do you continue to alter
my quotes so that I repeatedly mention your name (which once again, is
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) over and over, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
>> because now you have to account for the time the signal
>> takes to transit the cable. And for relatively moving objects connected
>> by a cable, does the length of the cable change as the object moves? If
>> so you have to account for the variable time the signal takes.
>well just use radio.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, now we have to account for the finite speed of
light, which sane people know is c, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. And Ralph,
the distance and thus the time is different as the rod moves in the other
frame, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. And to mess things up, you (Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge) will use Dirty Bathwater with its crazy variable speed of light
so you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) and others can't even agree what the
outcome even is, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's
>midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known
>to be simultaneous also.
In which reference frame, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 18:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nlgopc$3b8$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387215 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nlf6at$3at$2@pcls7.std.com... |Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, now we have to account for the finite speed of |light, which sane people know is c Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to support this idiocy in the long term, so, according to your General Shit it is c only in inertial frames (i.e. nowhere).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 07:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlh95i$1o6b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387215 |
On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > > Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >> to be simultaneous also. > > In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which one would precede the other and why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 17:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlhdk8$1u3a$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387247 |
On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >> >> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >>> to be simultaneous also. >> >> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? > > If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur > simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which > one would precede the other and why. > Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will occur simultaneously in all frames. Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes first will depend on the frame. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 05:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c73efe13-3cdf-40c5-8146-22f6753a3d4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387258 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > > > >> > >> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's > >>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known > >>> to be simultaneous also. > >> > >> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? > > > > If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur > > simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which > > one would precede the other and why. > > > > Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will > occur simultaneously in all frames. > > Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some > frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes > first will depend on the frame. Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 08:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlj0v2$1k1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387284 |
On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> >>>> >>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >>>>> to be simultaneous also. >>>> >>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? >>> >>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur >>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which >>> one would precede the other and why. >>> >> >> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will >> occur simultaneously in all frames. >> >> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some >> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes >> first will depend on the frame. > > Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if > they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the > event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS > to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. This amuses me. Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously. Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just looking for himself? Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 06:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <352224f7-9fbc-4d54-a521-4bdb91ab639b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387288 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's > >>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known > >>>>> to be simultaneous also. > >>>> > >>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? > >>> > >>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur > >>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which > >>> one would precede the other and why. > >>> > >> > >> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will > >> occur simultaneously in all frames. > >> > >> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some > >> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes > >> first will depend on the frame. > > > > Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if > > they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the > > event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS > > to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. > > This amuses me. > > Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events > happened simultaneously. > Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an > observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's frame until B informed him. By that time, the events already happened and there is no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. > Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two > events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just > looking for himself? > Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? Because A doesn't know in advance that there were two events happened in B's frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlj46h$7r5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387290 |
On 7/6/2016 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>>>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >>>>>>> to be simultaneous also. >>>>>> >>>>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? >>>>> >>>>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur >>>>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which >>>>> one would precede the other and why. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will >>>> occur simultaneously in all frames. >>>> >>>> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some >>>> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes >>>> first will depend on the frame. >>> >>> Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if >>> they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the >>> event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS >>> to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. >> >> This amuses me. >> >> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events >> happened simultaneously. >> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an >> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? > > Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's > frame until B informed him. By that time, the events already happened and there is > no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. B doesn't know the events are coming either. So how does he know to watch for the events to see if they are simultaneous? Is it not possible for A and B to be looking in the same area where the events happen at the same time? Is it not possible that they have set up an experiment to CREATE the events and they're both watching to see what will happen? Have you NEVER been in a situation where you say, "Hey, did you see that?" and someone else says, "Yeah, I did." Really, Ken? > >> Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two >> events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just >> looking for himself? >> Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? > > Because A doesn't know in advance that there were two events happened in B's frame. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 08:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74281d75-df5f-40cc-a481-6d0f46444a74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387291 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's > >>>>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known > >>>>>>> to be simultaneous also. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? > >>>>> > >>>>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur > >>>>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which > >>>>> one would precede the other and why. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will > >>>> occur simultaneously in all frames. > >>>> > >>>> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some > >>>> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes > >>>> first will depend on the frame. > >>> > >>> Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if > >>> they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the > >>> event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS > >>> to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. > >> > >> This amuses me. > >> > >> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events > >> happened simultaneously. > >> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an > >> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? > > > > Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's > > frame until B informed him. By that time, the events already happened and there is > > no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. > > Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. > B doesn't know the events are coming either. So how does he know to > watch for the events to see if they are simultaneous? He measures them to be simultaneous. > Is it not possible for A and B to be looking in the same area where the > events happen at the same time? Is it not possible that they have set up > an experiment to CREATE the events and they're both watching to see what > will happen? Have you NEVER been in a situation where you say, "Hey, did > you see that?" and someone else says, "Yeah, I did." Really, Ken? Only a local observer can determine if two events were simultaneous or not. The simultaneity of two distance events is not determinable by distance observers. In any case simultaneity got nothing to do with the assertions that measurements of time and length are affect by simultaneity....simultaneity is invented by Einstein to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. > > > > >> Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two > >> events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just > >> looking for himself? > >> Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? > > > > Because A doesn't know in advance that there were two events happened in B's frame. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlj9a3$gaa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387293 |
On 7/6/2016 10:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>>>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>>>>>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >>>>>>>>> to be simultaneous also. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur >>>>>>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which >>>>>>> one would precede the other and why. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will >>>>>> occur simultaneously in all frames. >>>>>> >>>>>> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some >>>>>> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes >>>>>> first will depend on the frame. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if >>>>> they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the >>>>> event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS >>>>> to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. >>>> >>>> This amuses me. >>>> >>>> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events >>>> happened simultaneously. >>>> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an >>>> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? >>> >>> Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's >>> frame until B informed him. By that time, the events already happened and there is >>> no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. >> >> Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. >> B doesn't know the events are coming either. So how does he know to >> watch for the events to see if they are simultaneous? > > He measures them to be simultaneous. Well, if he's prepared to make that measurement when the events happen, why can't A be similarly prepared? > >> Is it not possible for A and B to be looking in the same area where the >> events happen at the same time? Is it not possible that they have set up >> an experiment to CREATE the events and they're both watching to see what >> will happen? Have you NEVER been in a situation where you say, "Hey, did >> you see that?" and someone else says, "Yeah, I did." Really, Ken? > > Only a local observer can determine if two events were simultaneous or not. What do you mean "local" observer? You know that an event can be seen by ANY observer, right? There's not a boundary between frames where an observer in one frame can see the events and observers in other frames can't see it. You know that, right? > The simultaneity of two distance events is not determinable by distance observers. Who says observer B is distant? > In any case simultaneity got nothing to do with the assertions that measurements of > time and length are affect by simultaneity....simultaneity is invented by Einstein to > eliminate the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. The concept of simultaneity was INVENTED BY EINSTEIN? The word and the concept didn't exist before him??? Really???? > > >> >>> >>>> Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two >>>> events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just >>>> looking for himself? >>>> Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? >>> >>> Because A doesn't know in advance that there were two events happened in B's frame. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d505595f-a11c-4203-b9a0-66ffe004b1ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387301 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 10:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/6/2016 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>>>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's > >>>>>>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known > >>>>>>>>> to be simultaneous also. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur > >>>>>>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which > >>>>>>> one would precede the other and why. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will > >>>>>> occur simultaneously in all frames. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some > >>>>>> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes > >>>>>> first will depend on the frame. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if > >>>>> they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the > >>>>> event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS > >>>>> to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. > >>>> > >>>> This amuses me. > >>>> > >>>> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events > >>>> happened simultaneously. > >>>> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an > >>>> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? > >>> > >>> Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's > >>> frame until B informed him. By that time, the events already happened and there is > >>> no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. > >> > >> Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. > >> B doesn't know the events are coming either. So how does he know to > >> watch for the events to see if they are simultaneous? > > > > He measures them to be simultaneous. > > Well, if he's prepared to make that measurement when the events happen, > why can't A be similarly prepared? > > > > >> Is it not possible for A and B to be looking in the same area where the > >> events happen at the same time? Is it not possible that they have set up > >> an experiment to CREATE the events and they're both watching to see what > >> will happen? Have you NEVER been in a situation where you say, "Hey, did > >> you see that?" and someone else says, "Yeah, I did." Really, Ken? > > > > Only a local observer can determine if two events were simultaneous or not. > > What do you mean "local" observer? The observer located in the same frame as the events. > You know that an event can be seen by ANY observer, right? No....I wouldn't know if there was an event happened in Florida unless somebody in Florida called and told me. > There's not a boundary between frames where an observer in one frame can > see the events and observers in other frames can't see it. You know > that, right? But an outside observer have no way to know that an event had happened at a distance... > > > The simultaneity of two distance events is not determinable by distance observers. > > Who says observer B is distant? > > > In any case simultaneity got nothing to do with the assertions that measurements of > > time and length are affect by simultaneity....simultaneity is invented by Einstein to > > eliminate the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. > > The concept of simultaneity was INVENTED BY EINSTEIN? > The word and the concept didn't exist before him??? > Really???? > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two > >>>> events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just > >>>> looking for himself? > >>>> Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? > >>> > >>> Because A doesn't know in advance that there were two events happened in B's frame. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 17:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlk1bi$1m7g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387349 |
On 7/6/2016 5:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 10:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/6/2016 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's >>>>>>>>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known >>>>>>>>>>> to be simultaneous also. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur >>>>>>>>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which >>>>>>>>> one would precede the other and why. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will >>>>>>>> occur simultaneously in all frames. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some >>>>>>>> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes >>>>>>>> first will depend on the frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if >>>>>>> they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the >>>>>>> event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS >>>>>>> to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. >>>>>> >>>>>> This amuses me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events >>>>>> happened simultaneously. >>>>>> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an >>>>>> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? >>>>> >>>>> Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's >>>>> frame until B informed him. By that time, the events already happened and there is >>>>> no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. >>>> >>>> Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. >>>> B doesn't know the events are coming either. So how does he know to >>>> watch for the events to see if they are simultaneous? >>> >>> He measures them to be simultaneous. >> >> Well, if he's prepared to make that measurement when the events happen, >> why can't A be similarly prepared? >> >>> >>>> Is it not possible for A and B to be looking in the same area where the >>>> events happen at the same time? Is it not possible that they have set up >>>> an experiment to CREATE the events and they're both watching to see what >>>> will happen? Have you NEVER been in a situation where you say, "Hey, did >>>> you see that?" and someone else says, "Yeah, I did." Really, Ken? >>> >>> Only a local observer can determine if two events were simultaneous or not. >> >> What do you mean "local" observer? > > The observer located in the same frame as the events. How big do you think a frame is? Let's say you're in a car and you pass by a fireworks show. I'm sitting in a lawn chair in a park looking at the same fireworks show. You see two fireworks going off at the same time and you say those events are simultaneous. Is it going to be impossible for me to have seen those two fireworks going off? Are we in the same frame? > >> You know that an event can be seen by ANY observer, right? > > No....I wouldn't know if there was an event happened in Florida unless somebody in Florida called and told me. What if you have instrumentation? Does observing mean looking at it with eyes? Is that what observation means to you? > >> There's not a boundary between frames where an observer in one frame can >> see the events and observers in other frames can't see it. You know >> that, right? > > But an outside observer have no way to know that an event had happened at a distance... What distance? > > > >> >>> The simultaneity of two distance events is not determinable by distance observers. >> >> Who says observer B is distant? Who says observer B or observer A is distant? >> >>> In any case simultaneity got nothing to do with the assertions that measurements of >>> time and length are affect by simultaneity....simultaneity is invented by Einstein to >>> eliminate the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. >> >> The concept of simultaneity was INVENTED BY EINSTEIN? >> The word and the concept didn't exist before him??? >> Really???? >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two >>>>>> events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just >>>>>> looking for himself? >>>>>> Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? >>>>> >>>>> Because A doesn't know in advance that there were two events happened in B's frame. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | 2016-07-07 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8883311-7cf2-4bdf-becf-e3eae2d77340@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387351 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:39:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 5:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/6/2016 10:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/6/2016 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/5/2016 4:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 05/07/16 12:34, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Send both start times simultaneously from the rod's > >>>>>>>>>>> midpoint and then both finish times when they happen...which are known > >>>>>>>>>>> to be simultaneous also. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In which reference frame, Henry George Wilson? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If two events occur simultaneously at the same location, they must occur > >>>>>>>>> simultaneously in all frames. If you don't agree, you must tell me which > >>>>>>>>> one would precede the other and why. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Of course two events occur simultaneously and at the same location will > >>>>>>>> occur simultaneously in all frames. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Two events that occur simultaneously in DIFFERENT locations in some > >>>>>>>> frame will not occur simultaneously in other frames. Which one comes > >>>>>>>> first will depend on the frame. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if > >>>>>>> they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the > >>>>>>> event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS > >>>>>>> to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This amuses me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events > >>>>>> happened simultaneously. > >>>>>> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an > >>>>>> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? > >>>>> > >>>>> Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's > >>>>> frame until B informed him. By that time, the events already happened and there is > >>>>> no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. > >>>> > >>>> Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. > >>>> B doesn't know the events are coming either. So how does he know to > >>>> watch for the events to see if they are simultaneous? > >>> > >>> He measures them to be simultaneous. > >> > >> Well, if he's prepared to make that measurement when the events happen, > >> why can't A be similarly prepared? > >> > >>> > >>>> Is it not possible for A and B to be looking in the same area where the > >>>> events happen at the same time? Is it not possible that they have set up > >>>> an experiment to CREATE the events and they're both watching to see what > >>>> will happen? Have you NEVER been in a situation where you say, "Hey, did > >>>> you see that?" and someone else says, "Yeah, I did." Really, Ken? > >>> > >>> Only a local observer can determine if two events were simultaneous or not. > >> > >> What do you mean "local" observer? > > > > The observer located in the same frame as the events. > > How big do you think a frame is? > > Let's say you're in a car and you pass by a fireworks show. I'm sitting > in a lawn chair in a park looking at the same fireworks show. You see > two fireworks going off at the same time and you say those events are > simultaneous. Is it going to be impossible for me to have seen those two > fireworks going off? Are we in the same frame? My point is: only the observer at the mid point of the two events can determine the simultaneity of them. In any case simultaneity is irrelevant in physics. Einstein used RoS to overcome the paradoxes created by his constant light speed postulate. > > > > >> You know that an event can be seen by ANY observer, right? > > > > No....I wouldn't know if there was an event happened in Florida unless somebody in Florida called and told me. > > What if you have instrumentation? Does observing mean looking at it with > eyes? Is that what observation means to you? > > > > >> There's not a boundary between frames where an observer in one frame can > >> see the events and observers in other frames can't see it. You know > >> that, right? > > > > But an outside observer have no way to know that an event had happened at a distance... > > What distance? > > > > > > > > >> > >>> The simultaneity of two distance events is not determinable by distance observers. > >> > >> Who says observer B is distant? > > Who says observer B or observer A is distant? > > >> > >>> In any case simultaneity got nothing to do with the assertions that measurements of > >>> time and length are affect by simultaneity....simultaneity is invented by Einstein to > >>> eliminate the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. > >> > >> The concept of simultaneity was INVENTED BY EINSTEIN? > >> The word and the concept didn't exist before him??? > >> Really???? > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two > >>>>>> events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just > >>>>>> looking for himself? > >>>>>> Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? > >>>>> > >>>>> Because A doesn't know in advance that there were two events happened in B's frame. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 | 2016-07-07 09:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nllo1g$1tlq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387373 |
On 7/7/2016 7:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:39:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 5:22 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Only a local observer can determine if two events were simultaneous or not. >>>> >>>> What do you mean "local" observer? >>> >>> The observer located in the same frame as the events. >> >> How big do you think a frame is? >> >> Let's say you're in a car and you pass by a fireworks show. I'm sitting >> in a lawn chair in a park looking at the same fireworks show. You see >> two fireworks going off at the same time and you say those events are >> simultaneous. Is it going to be impossible for me to have seen those two >> fireworks going off? Are we in the same frame? I notice you didn't bother trying to answer the questions. Probably because you know your previous comment was ill-thought-out. > > My point is: only the observer at the mid point of the two events can determine the > simultaneity of them. That's simply not true. > In any case simultaneity is irrelevant in physics. What on earth are you talking about? You don't think simultaneity comes up in classical physics? > Einstein used RoS to overcome the paradoxes created by his constant light speed postulate. >> >>> >>>> You know that an event can be seen by ANY observer, right? >>> >>> No....I wouldn't know if there was an event happened in Florida unless somebody in Florida called and told me. >> >> What if you have instrumentation? Does observing mean looking at it with >> eyes? Is that what observation means to you? >> >>> >>>> There's not a boundary between frames where an observer in one frame can >>>> see the events and observers in other frames can't see it. You know >>>> that, right? >>> >>> But an outside observer have no way to know that an event had happened at a distance... >> >> What distance? >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> The simultaneity of two distance events is not determinable by distance observers. >>>> >>>> Who says observer B is distant? >> >> Who says observer B or observer A is distant? >> >>>> >>>>> In any case simultaneity got nothing to do with the assertions that measurements of >>>>> time and length are affect by simultaneity....simultaneity is invented by Einstein to >>>>> eliminate the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. >>>> >>>> The concept of simultaneity was INVENTED BY EINSTEIN? >>>> The word and the concept didn't exist before him??? >>>> Really???? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe you can tell me why A has to rely on B telling him whether the two >>>>>>>> events should or should not appear simultaneously, rather than just >>>>>>>> looking for himself? >>>>>>>> Are you thinking that only one observer can view an event? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because A doesn't know in advance that there were two events happened in B's frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlj6ms$glh$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387290 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:27:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > Wrong....if two events happened simultaneously in B's frame A has no idea if >> > they happened simultaneously or not until B uses the LT to inform A that the >> > event did happened simultaneously. What this mean is that you cannot use RoS >> > to eliminate the paradoxes derived from the SR constant light speed postulate. >> >> This amuses me. >> >> Presumably B did an observation to determine whether the two events >> happened simultaneously. >> Now maybe you can tell me why it is impossible for A to also do an >> observation to determine whether the two events happened simultaneously? >Because A did not know that there were two events happened simultaneously in B's frame until B informed him. By that time, >the events already happened and there is no way for A to determine if the events happened simultaneously or not. You didn't answer his question. Why could A not observe the events himself, decide whether or not they were simultaneous, and then hear from B what B's observation of whether the events were simultaneous or not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web