Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403013 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-26 06:43 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-29 07:18 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 578 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 06:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 07:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 07:38 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 09:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-12-26 20:31 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 14:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-12-27 01:00 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 19:32 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-29 12:13 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 14:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-30 09:34 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-26 12:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 15:56 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:47 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 15:32 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-27 19:08 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 05:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-28 20:58 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 07:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 18:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 22:08 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 06:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 07:17 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 08:51 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 09:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 12:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-30 12:44 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 15:12 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 17:03 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 19:30 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 09:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-31 11:53 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 14:34 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-31 17:29 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 18:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-31 18:56 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 22:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 05:56 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 09:23 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 11:50 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 22:27 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 05:05 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 08:51 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 09:25 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-02 09:36 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 12:24 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 19:48 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 21:33 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 06:22 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-03 06:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 09:11 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-01 23:44 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-01 23:42 -0800
Natural imbecile Rober Winn hard at "work" "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-01 09:03 -0800
Re: Natural imbecile Rober Winn hard at "work" Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 09:27 -0800
Re: Natural imbecile Rober Winn hard at "work" "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-02 06:01 -0800
Re: Natural imbecile Rober Winn hard at "work" Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 08:51 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 08:03 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-30 03:28 +0000
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 22:11 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:01 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:15 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 15:45 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 14:11 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-03 14:30 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 19:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 19:31 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 14:33 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:19 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 18:24 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 09:58 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-05 13:56 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 15:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-06 04:21 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-06 04:35 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-06 04:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 07:13 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 22:42 -0800
Robert Winn continues to bask in his imbecility "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 12:11 -0800
Re: Robert Winn continues to bask in his imbecility Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 21:35 -0800
Re: Robert Winn continues to bask in his imbecility "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 08:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 07:34 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 11:48 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 20:29 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 21:11 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 21:46 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 21:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 22:20 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 22:46 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 06:27 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-09 15:42 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 08:33 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 19:20 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 06:29 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-10 07:05 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 07:58 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 12:02 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-10 10:52 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 11:01 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-10 12:10 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 12:12 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 13:24 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-10 13:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 15:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 23:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-11 04:01 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-11 04:13 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 06:22 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 06:38 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 07:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 08:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:15 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:58 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 18:01 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-11 11:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-11 21:47 +0000
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 14:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 17:34 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 09:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:03 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:02 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 13:13 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 14:18 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 15:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 15:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 16:30 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 16:33 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 18:57 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 19:14 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 19:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 05:16 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 09:17 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 13:10 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 13:19 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 13:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:15 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-13 14:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-13 22:35 +0000
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 17:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 19:24 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-13 14:54 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-13 23:10 +0000
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 19:27 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:14 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 17:08 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 15:51 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 18:11 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 20:44 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-12 21:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 21:17 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-13 04:53 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 08:53 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-13 11:50 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 12:44 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-13 13:07 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-13 14:19 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-13 22:31 +0000
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 17:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-13 20:30 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 07:42 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-14 09:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 18:59 +0000
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:20 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 08:58 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 15:52 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 11:39 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-14 12:27 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 12:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-14 16:50 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 21:53 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 14:00 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 09:57 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 10:35 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 13:08 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 15:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 22:34 -0800
Imbecile Robert Winn fails basic algebra. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-12 10:19 -0800
Re: Imbecile Robert Winn fails basic algebra. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:03 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:07 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 13:13 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 15:35 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:08 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 17:11 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-14 10:12 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 16:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:24 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-11 21:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:31 -0800
imbecile rober winn perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 18:00 -0800
Re: imbecile rober winn perseveres Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-10 15:16 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-08 23:19 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-09 03:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-09 03:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 22:04 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-03 23:38 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 07:27 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-04 13:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:48 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 10:11 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 15:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 09:39 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 10:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 07:08 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 22:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 13:50 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 21:35 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-08 08:42 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-08 09:48 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 13:02 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 11:23 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 15:29 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-09 13:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 14:28 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 17:16 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 06:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 08:37 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 06:57 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-10 06:35 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 06:36 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 11:14 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 09:16 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 08:54 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 07:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 10:08 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 09:48 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 15:38 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:11 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 17:04 -0600
Cretin Rober Winn. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 08:52 -0800
Re: Cretin Rober Winn. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:16 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 07:29 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 08:32 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 08:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 08:53 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 09:02 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 13:15 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:12 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 13:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 14:02 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-15 12:23 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 20:58 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-16 04:05 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-16 04:17 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 06:10 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-16 06:34 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 09:27 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 09:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 11:33 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 14:15 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-16 15:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 20:51 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-17 06:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-17 06:57 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-17 07:04 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 07:34 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-17 07:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 07:21 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 07:05 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 10:46 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 14:33 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 16:49 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 16:04 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 11:29 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:38 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:25 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-18 11:12 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:17 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 15:31 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-18 23:34 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 16:40 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-18 23:54 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 15:52 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 19:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 19:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 20:07 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 20:16 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 20:19 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 20:36 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-18 21:08 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 07:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-19 04:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 07:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-19 09:50 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 16:10 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-19 20:01 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 20:34 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 08:48 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 07:33 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 10:36 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 15:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-19 19:52 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 20:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 05:39 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-20 05:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 06:28 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 07:53 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 15:29 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 17:56 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-21 04:07 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 19:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 19:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 20:24 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 21:29 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 04:32 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-21 04:51 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 07:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-21 08:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 09:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 07:32 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 18:46 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-22 03:20 +0000
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 21:13 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-22 04:27 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-22 05:35 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 07:33 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-22 14:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 16:35 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-22 17:39 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 19:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-22 20:05 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 23:35 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 01:14 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 07:20 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-23 08:01 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 08:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Larisa Kull <looaiuoais@kesfgais.org> - 2017-01-23 04:11 +0000
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 23:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-23 03:36 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 07:21 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-23 08:22 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 09:39 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 11:44 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 10:07 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:26 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 11:18 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:51 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:56 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-23 21:44 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:46 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 11:44 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:14 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-23 18:38 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 19:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-24 04:22 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 07:44 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-24 08:27 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 20:51 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 07:36 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:38 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 08:28 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 07:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 09:57 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 08:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 08:04 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 16:02 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 21:10 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 16:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-19 21:12 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 05:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 08:47 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 07:31 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-23 08:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 09:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 10:35 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 09:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:24 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 11:17 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 12:04 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:51 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 17:08 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 07:25 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-24 06:04 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 07:50 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:41 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 09:05 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 05:50 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:07 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:24 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 09:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-25 19:02 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:25 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-25 19:40 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 11:18 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 12:48 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 12:30 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 11:17 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 14:59 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-25 14:21 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 15:08 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 15:07 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 20:21 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 20:02 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 22:26 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 07:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 07:42 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 07:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 07:50 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 14:14 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:39 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 23:29 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 12:44 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-28 11:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:53 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 23:57 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 12:46 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 16:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 14:06 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 16:21 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 16:44 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 19:48 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 18:31 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 07:55 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-30 07:27 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 09:37 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 07:53 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:03 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-30 08:15 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:25 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-30 07:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:02 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-30 08:30 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 11:21 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-30 11:32 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 13:39 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-30 14:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 07:12 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-31 05:39 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 08:40 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-31 11:42 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 07:39 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 10:47 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:48 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:02 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-31 11:15 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:31 -0800
The cretin Robert Winn perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-31 18:07 -0800
The cretin Robert Winn perseveres "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 18:15 -0800
Re: The cretin Robert Winn perseveres Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-01 03:20 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:45 -0800
Imbecile Robert Winn at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 11:05 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 14:27 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:16 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 08:59 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 20:07 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 04:42 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 10:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 19:49 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 11:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 20:52 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 12:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:30 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 12:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 21:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 05:03 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 07:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:48 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 08:51 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:52 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 11:19 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 20:41 -0500
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:50 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 08:43 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:03 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 11:54 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 19:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 08:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 09:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 12:46 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 14:01 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 14:24 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 14:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 18:54 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 19:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 20:36 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 05:10 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:58 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 07:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:54 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 13:02 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 15:37 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 16:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:41 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 22:29 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:42 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 07:25 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 04:54 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 05:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 07:13 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:11 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:34 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:02 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 11:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:39 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:32 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 16:00 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 21:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:45 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:31 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 21:42 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:39 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 11:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-05 20:33 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-31 09:40 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:53 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 07:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:10 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 08:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 11:27 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:49 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 13:05 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 11:45 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 13:55 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 14:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-30 21:44 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 14:30 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-31 00:00 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 15:47 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 07:16 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 07:56 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:02 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 08:46 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 08:26 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:32 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 11:43 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 10:04 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 12:50 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-31 11:34 -0800
Cretin Robert Winn at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-31 08:55 -0800
Re: Cretin Robert Winn at work Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:42 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-25 12:55 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 15:03 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 10:42 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 09:06 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 05:52 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:09 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 08:19 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 09:52 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-25 10:44 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 10:27 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 09:57 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 12:49 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-24 08:05 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 08:19 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-24 08:54 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-01-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 13:50 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 16:18 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 11:48 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-18 10:19 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-17 14:50 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:36 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-17 19:59 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:15 -0800
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 11:49 -0600
Re: Python's two frames, two points, and two clocks. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 07:18 -0600
Page 27 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 25 26 [27] 28 29 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 21:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29ea1441-4e62-4957-aa31-f64622846edc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407896 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/3/2017 10:07 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/2/2017 12:16 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> These equations do not have a length contraction, just two different rates of time. > >> > >> And what are you going to do with the fact that length contraction has > >> been experimentally measured? Insist that the equations tell you that > >> this cannot happen? > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > I am not going to do anything. No one has yet proved to me that there is a length contraction. > > > > I don't think anyone is going to come knocking on your door to prove > anything. Whether you're aware of it or not does not change the fact. > Whether anyone has demonstrated the fact to you does not change the fact. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables No one is going to attempt to prove anything because there is no one in science capable of doing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 09:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o77h06$75b$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407925 |
On 2/4/2017 11:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 10:07 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/2/2017 12:16 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> These equations do not have a length contraction, just two different rates of time. >>>> >>>> And what are you going to do with the fact that length contraction has >>>> been experimentally measured? Insist that the equations tell you that >>>> this cannot happen? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> I am not going to do anything. No one has yet proved to me that there is a length contraction. >>> >> >> I don't think anyone is going to come knocking on your door to prove >> anything. Whether you're aware of it or not does not change the fact. >> Whether anyone has demonstrated the fact to you does not change the fact. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > No one is going to attempt to prove anything because there is no one in science capable of doing it. > See, that's a 3rd grade dare, Robert. That's a "If you don't do it on my demand, that's proof you can't do it." If you hold up a hoop and tell a passer-by, "Bet you can't jump through this hoop," and they say, "I'm not going to jump through a hoop, just because you asked me to," are you then SERIOUSLY going to say, "See, I told you you couldn't do it." How old are you? Seven? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 11:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1978efe9-f43f-4ab4-88d3-be41ccd9abfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407956 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:39:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/4/2017 11:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/3/2017 10:07 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/2/2017 12:16 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> These equations do not have a length contraction, just two different rates of time. > >>>> > >>>> And what are you going to do with the fact that length contraction has > >>>> been experimentally measured? Insist that the equations tell you that > >>>> this cannot happen? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> I am not going to do anything. No one has yet proved to me that there is a length contraction. > >>> > >> > >> I don't think anyone is going to come knocking on your door to prove > >> anything. Whether you're aware of it or not does not change the fact. > >> Whether anyone has demonstrated the fact to you does not change the fact. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > No one is going to attempt to prove anything because there is no one in science capable of doing it. > > > > See, that's a 3rd grade dare, Robert. That's a "If you don't do it on my > demand, that's proof you can't do it." > > If you hold up a hoop and tell a passer-by, "Bet you can't jump through > this hoop," and they say, "I'm not going to jump through a hoop, just > because you asked me to," are you then SERIOUSLY going to say, "See, I > told you you couldn't do it." > > How old are you? Seven? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables There is no demand, no expectation, and no result expected. I was just remarking that modern science cannot prove me wrong. No one really expects them to try.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 20:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o77um0$ul0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408000 |
Le 05/02/2017 à 20:26, Robert Winn a écrit : > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:39:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/4/2017 11:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/3/2017 10:07 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 2/2/2017 12:16 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> These equations do not have a length contraction, just two different rates of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what are you going to do with the fact that length contraction has >>>>>> been experimentally measured? Insist that the equations tell you that >>>>>> this cannot happen? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> I am not going to do anything. No one has yet proved to me that there is a length contraction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think anyone is going to come knocking on your door to prove >>>> anything. Whether you're aware of it or not does not change the fact. >>>> Whether anyone has demonstrated the fact to you does not change the fact. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> No one is going to attempt to prove anything because there is no one in science capable of doing it. >>> >> >> See, that's a 3rd grade dare, Robert. That's a "If you don't do it on my >> demand, that's proof you can't do it." >> >> If you hold up a hoop and tell a passer-by, "Bet you can't jump through >> this hoop," and they say, "I'm not going to jump through a hoop, just >> because you asked me to," are you then SERIOUSLY going to say, "See, I >> told you you couldn't do it." >> >> How old are you? Seven? >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > There is no demand, no expectation, and no result expected. I was > just remarking that modern science cannot prove me wrong. No one > really expects them to try. Science is about studying, Mr Winn. Not about wanking on a silly equation proven wrong on the first day during twenty years. Science is about honesty, you've only shown lies, forging quotes and denying obvious disproofs of you silly words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7aj36$u2d$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408000 |
On 2/5/2017 1:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:39:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/4/2017 11:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:31:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/3/2017 10:07 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 2/2/2017 12:16 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> These equations do not have a length contraction, just two different rates of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what are you going to do with the fact that length contraction has >>>>>> been experimentally measured? Insist that the equations tell you that >>>>>> this cannot happen? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> I am not going to do anything. No one has yet proved to me that there is a length contraction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think anyone is going to come knocking on your door to prove >>>> anything. Whether you're aware of it or not does not change the fact. >>>> Whether anyone has demonstrated the fact to you does not change the fact. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> No one is going to attempt to prove anything because there is no one in science capable of doing it. >>> >> >> See, that's a 3rd grade dare, Robert. That's a "If you don't do it on my >> demand, that's proof you can't do it." >> >> If you hold up a hoop and tell a passer-by, "Bet you can't jump through >> this hoop," and they say, "I'm not going to jump through a hoop, just >> because you asked me to," are you then SERIOUSLY going to say, "See, I >> told you you couldn't do it." >> >> How old are you? Seven? >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > There is no demand, no expectation, and no result expected. I was just remarking that modern science > cannot prove me wrong. No one really expects them to try. > You remarked incorrectly. What you should have said is that "Modern science has not come to me to prove me wrong." This is much different than "Modern science cannot prove me wrong." This is precisely what I was alluding to. Are you seven? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 09:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d6e3a7d-11bb-44f7-ae56-d04c62239144@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407353 |
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:39:19 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote: > > What difference does it make what SR says? You still have not explained how a slower clock ends up giving us the same velocity as a faster clock. No one can explain that to you, Robert. The reason is that you are an imbecile, one cannot teach things to an imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 09:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <318b9417-32dc-4d38-8874-c0fcf96c50f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407373 |
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:40:32 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:39:19 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > What difference does it make what SR says? You still have not explained how a slower clock ends up giving us the same velocity as a faster clock. > > No one can explain that to you, Robert. The reason is that you are an imbecile, one cannot teach things to an imbecile. Thank you for sharing, Dono.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 07:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b9a0293-cb9c-48d0-8a53-c8db85b24484@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407205 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/29/2017 8:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/29/2017 6:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/28/2017 6:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>>>> I don't think my objective is to convince you. My objective is just to > >>>>>> point out that you've made a number of mistakes. Whether you acknowledge > >>>>>> them as mistakes is up to you. Some of them are pretty obvious and to > >>>>>> not acknowledge them as mistakes seems rather foolish to me, but I won't > >>>>>> deny your American liberty to be foolish. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK, I will put the question to you one more time. > >>>> > >>>> The question was already answered by me. See the previous posts just > >>>> yesterday..... > >>>> > >>>>> Now we take a clock on which the minute hand rotates only once per day.... > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Irrelevant case. > >>> > >>> OK, you are saying what you have always said, you refuse to answer the question. > >>> > >> > >> I answered the relevant question, which has nothing to do with the > >> little boondoggle you have posted about a rusty clock. > > > > Well, let's see your answer again. Irrelevant just does not cut it. You were going to > > explain how Einstein's slower clock is different from the slower clocks in my experiment. > > > > Already have explained it, Robert. Should I assume you cannot read? > > Recall I said that Einstein's clocks show a different elapsed time for a > SPECIFIC PHYSICAL reason. Relativity does not apply to clocks that are > slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or > because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms. Only an outright > idiot would try to use a rusty clock to make some point about what > relativity predicts for slower clocks and resultant speeds. I was not talking about rusty or cheap clocks. I was talking about expensive and precise clocks manufactured especially for the experiment. Your premise seems to be that any clock which does not agree with a cesium clock under the same conditions is an outright idiot clock. I was pointing out that outright idiot clocks can be manufactured to run at any rate. But I think we are making progress. You have admitted that outright idiot clocks can exist. Now suppose that we make an outright idiot clock that is slightly slower than a cesium clock and put it beside a cesium clock. Then we accelerate an identical cesium clock to a velocity that slows the cesium clock to the rate of the outright idiot clock. Why do you say that the accelerated cesium clock will have a time that shows a velocity agreeing with the other cesium clock? I get that it would agree with the velocity calculated from the time of the outright idiot clock. Or suppose that we take an identical cesium clock to an altitude that causes it to be faster than an identical cesium clock on earth, such as happens with GPS clocks. Then we put an outright idiot clock next to the cesium clock on earth that has the same rate as the faster cesium clock. Does the faster cesium clock have a time that shows a velocity agreeing with a velocity calculated from the time of the cesium clock on earth or does it have a time that agrees with velocity calculated from the time of the outright idiot clock?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 10:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o6noh7$7b0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407217 |
On 1/30/2017 9:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/29/2017 8:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/29/2017 6:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/28/2017 6:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think my objective is to convince you. My objective is just to >>>>>>>> point out that you've made a number of mistakes. Whether you acknowledge >>>>>>>> them as mistakes is up to you. Some of them are pretty obvious and to >>>>>>>> not acknowledge them as mistakes seems rather foolish to me, but I won't >>>>>>>> deny your American liberty to be foolish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, I will put the question to you one more time. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question was already answered by me. See the previous posts just >>>>>> yesterday..... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Now we take a clock on which the minute hand rotates only once per day.... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant case. >>>>> >>>>> OK, you are saying what you have always said, you refuse to answer the question. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I answered the relevant question, which has nothing to do with the >>>> little boondoggle you have posted about a rusty clock. >>> >>> Well, let's see your answer again. Irrelevant just does not cut it. You were going to >>> explain how Einstein's slower clock is different from the slower clocks in my experiment. >>> >> >> Already have explained it, Robert. Should I assume you cannot read? >> >> Recall I said that Einstein's clocks show a different elapsed time for a >> SPECIFIC PHYSICAL reason. Relativity does not apply to clocks that are >> slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or >> because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms. Only an outright >> idiot would try to use a rusty clock to make some point about what >> relativity predicts for slower clocks and resultant speeds. > > I was not talking about rusty or cheap clocks. I was talking about expensive and precise > clocks manufactured especially for the experiment. Alright, so let me amend my statement to say that relativity does not apply to clocks that are slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms, or because it is deliberately and carefully designed to be a bad clock. > Your premise seems to be that any clock > which does not agree with a cesium clock under the same conditions is an outright idiot clock. Any clock which does not tick off one second when 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of a local and at-rest cesium 133 atom, is indeed an idiot clock. Any clock that does not tick off a second according to the local and at-rest definition of a second, is an idiot clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 08:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a041c4ed-1ca7-46d3-878f-f8ffbd2faea2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407221 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/30/2017 9:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/29/2017 8:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/29/2017 6:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 1/28/2017 6:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't think my objective is to convince you. My objective is just to > >>>>>>>> point out that you've made a number of mistakes. Whether you acknowledge > >>>>>>>> them as mistakes is up to you. Some of them are pretty obvious and to > >>>>>>>> not acknowledge them as mistakes seems rather foolish to me, but I won't > >>>>>>>> deny your American liberty to be foolish. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK, I will put the question to you one more time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The question was already answered by me. See the previous posts just > >>>>>> yesterday..... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now we take a clock on which the minute hand rotates only once per day.... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Irrelevant case. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK, you are saying what you have always said, you refuse to answer the question. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I answered the relevant question, which has nothing to do with the > >>>> little boondoggle you have posted about a rusty clock. > >>> > >>> Well, let's see your answer again. Irrelevant just does not cut it. You were going to > >>> explain how Einstein's slower clock is different from the slower clocks in my experiment. > >>> > >> > >> Already have explained it, Robert. Should I assume you cannot read? > >> > >> Recall I said that Einstein's clocks show a different elapsed time for a > >> SPECIFIC PHYSICAL reason. Relativity does not apply to clocks that are > >> slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or > >> because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms. Only an outright > >> idiot would try to use a rusty clock to make some point about what > >> relativity predicts for slower clocks and resultant speeds. > > > > I was not talking about rusty or cheap clocks. I was talking about expensive and precise > > clocks manufactured especially for the experiment. > > Alright, so let me amend my statement to say that relativity does not > apply to clocks that are slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because > of rust or dust, or because there is an insect stuck under one of the > arms, or because it is deliberately and carefully designed to be a bad > clock. > > > Your premise seems to be that any clock > > which does not agree with a cesium clock under the same conditions is an outright idiot clock. > > Any clock which does not tick off one second when 9,192,631,770 periods > of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > hyperfine levels of the ground state of a local and at-rest cesium 133 > atom, is indeed an idiot clock. Any clock that does not tick off a > second according to the local and at-rest definition of a second, is an > idiot clock. OK, so we have established that there are idiot clocks and clocks you call scientific clocks. That does not really confuse me. If you fly a scientific clock on an airplane, and compare it with an identical scientific clock kept on earth after the flight of the airplane, the two clocks will not agree with one another. That can only mean one thing. During the flight of the airplane, the clock on the airplane had a different rate than the clock on the ground. So whether or not you call it a local and at-rest clock in its own frame of reference, it has a different rate than the clock on the ground. You have stated over and over that you do not want to discuss that. I think it is time to say that we need to respect your superstitions and stop trying to get you to discuss things your length contraction religion does not allow you to discuss. So let us know if you decide to recognize reality, otherwise, I will just assume that your length contraction worship prevents you from discussing reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 11:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o6nt2l$fv4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407231 |
On 1/30/2017 10:55 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/30/2017 9:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/29/2017 8:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/29/2017 6:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/28/2017 6:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think my objective is to convince you. My objective is just to >>>>>>>>>> point out that you've made a number of mistakes. Whether you acknowledge >>>>>>>>>> them as mistakes is up to you. Some of them are pretty obvious and to >>>>>>>>>> not acknowledge them as mistakes seems rather foolish to me, but I won't >>>>>>>>>> deny your American liberty to be foolish. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK, I will put the question to you one more time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question was already answered by me. See the previous posts just >>>>>>>> yesterday..... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now we take a clock on which the minute hand rotates only once per day.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, you are saying what you have always said, you refuse to answer the question. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I answered the relevant question, which has nothing to do with the >>>>>> little boondoggle you have posted about a rusty clock. >>>>> >>>>> Well, let's see your answer again. Irrelevant just does not cut it. You were going to >>>>> explain how Einstein's slower clock is different from the slower clocks in my experiment. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Already have explained it, Robert. Should I assume you cannot read? >>>> >>>> Recall I said that Einstein's clocks show a different elapsed time for a >>>> SPECIFIC PHYSICAL reason. Relativity does not apply to clocks that are >>>> slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or >>>> because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms. Only an outright >>>> idiot would try to use a rusty clock to make some point about what >>>> relativity predicts for slower clocks and resultant speeds. >>> >>> I was not talking about rusty or cheap clocks. I was talking about expensive and precise >>> clocks manufactured especially for the experiment. >> >> Alright, so let me amend my statement to say that relativity does not >> apply to clocks that are slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because >> of rust or dust, or because there is an insect stuck under one of the >> arms, or because it is deliberately and carefully designed to be a bad >> clock. >> >>> Your premise seems to be that any clock >>> which does not agree with a cesium clock under the same conditions is an outright idiot clock. >> >> Any clock which does not tick off one second when 9,192,631,770 periods >> of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two >> hyperfine levels of the ground state of a local and at-rest cesium 133 >> atom, is indeed an idiot clock. Any clock that does not tick off a >> second according to the local and at-rest definition of a second, is an >> idiot clock. > > OK, so we have established that there are idiot clocks and clocks you call scientific clocks. > That does not really confuse me. If you fly a scientific clock on an airplane, and compare > it with an identical scientific clock kept on earth after the flight of the airplane, the two > clocks will not agree with one another. That's right. > That can only mean one thing. During the flight of the airplane, the clock on the airplane > had a different rate than the clock on the ground. No, there are certainly other things it can mean. Now, I completely get that this is the only thing that seems to occur to you as to what it might mean. And so it's only natural for you to say, "Well, since this is the only thing I can think of, then it must be the only thing possible to explain it." But you see, other people learn what else it might mean. They don't resort to saying, "Well, if it's not the one thing I can think of, it must be magic then." > So whether or not you call it a local and at-rest clock in its own frame of reference, > it has a different rate than the clock on the ground. > You have stated over and over that you do not want to discuss that. I think it is time to > say that we need to respect your superstitions and stop trying to get you to discuss things > your length contraction religion does not allow you to discuss. You keep mentioning this "length contraction religion". Length contraction has been observed in nature, just like mammals that lay eggs and water that is still liquid under 32 Fahrenheit. All three of these things might be unfamiliar to you and so you might think of them as miracles, but none of them are miracles. They are just things that happen, whether you believe they happen or not. > So let us know if you decide to recognize reality, otherwise, I will just assume that your > length contraction worship prevents you from discussing reality. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 10:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2785bb2d-023b-4a33-ae1f-92e009b67ee2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407235 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:27:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/30/2017 10:55 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/30/2017 9:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/29/2017 8:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 1/29/2017 6:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 1/28/2017 6:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think my objective is to convince you. My objective is just to > >>>>>>>>>> point out that you've made a number of mistakes. Whether you acknowledge > >>>>>>>>>> them as mistakes is up to you. Some of them are pretty obvious and to > >>>>>>>>>> not acknowledge them as mistakes seems rather foolish to me, but I won't > >>>>>>>>>> deny your American liberty to be foolish. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> OK, I will put the question to you one more time. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The question was already answered by me. See the previous posts just > >>>>>>>> yesterday..... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now we take a clock on which the minute hand rotates only once per day.... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Irrelevant case. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK, you are saying what you have always said, you refuse to answer the question. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I answered the relevant question, which has nothing to do with the > >>>>>> little boondoggle you have posted about a rusty clock. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, let's see your answer again. Irrelevant just does not cut it. You were going to > >>>>> explain how Einstein's slower clock is different from the slower clocks in my experiment. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Already have explained it, Robert. Should I assume you cannot read? > >>>> > >>>> Recall I said that Einstein's clocks show a different elapsed time for a > >>>> SPECIFIC PHYSICAL reason. Relativity does not apply to clocks that are > >>>> slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or > >>>> because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms. Only an outright > >>>> idiot would try to use a rusty clock to make some point about what > >>>> relativity predicts for slower clocks and resultant speeds. > >>> > >>> I was not talking about rusty or cheap clocks. I was talking about expensive and precise > >>> clocks manufactured especially for the experiment. > >> > >> Alright, so let me amend my statement to say that relativity does not > >> apply to clocks that are slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because > >> of rust or dust, or because there is an insect stuck under one of the > >> arms, or because it is deliberately and carefully designed to be a bad > >> clock. > >> > >>> Your premise seems to be that any clock > >>> which does not agree with a cesium clock under the same conditions is an outright idiot clock. > >> > >> Any clock which does not tick off one second when 9,192,631,770 periods > >> of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > >> hyperfine levels of the ground state of a local and at-rest cesium 133 > >> atom, is indeed an idiot clock. Any clock that does not tick off a > >> second according to the local and at-rest definition of a second, is an > >> idiot clock. > > > > OK, so we have established that there are idiot clocks and clocks you call scientific clocks. > > That does not really confuse me. If you fly a scientific clock on an airplane, and compare > > it with an identical scientific clock kept on earth after the flight of the airplane, the two > > clocks will not agree with one another. > > That's right. > > > That can only mean one thing. During the flight of the airplane, the clock on the airplane > > had a different rate than the clock on the ground. > > No, there are certainly other things it can mean. Now, I completely get > that this is the only thing that seems to occur to you as to what it > might mean. And so it's only natural for you to say, "Well, since this > is the only thing I can think of, then it must be the only thing > possible to explain it." But you see, other people learn what else it > might mean. They don't resort to saying, "Well, if it's not the one > thing I can think of, it must be magic then." I did not say anything about magic. I can account for all times and rates of time. You are the one who believes in magic. > > > So whether or not you call it a local and at-rest clock in its own frame of reference, > > it has a different rate than the clock on the ground. > > You have stated over and over that you do not want to discuss that. I think it is time to > > say that we need to respect your superstitions and stop trying to get you to discuss things > > your length contraction religion does not allow you to discuss.... You have learned a discipline, just as Muslim suicide bombers learn disciplines. It does not matter to you that your discipline does not make sense. You are a fanatic who will do what you have been taught without deviating from the discipline.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 13:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o6o2qf$q95$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407244 |
On 1/30/2017 12:49 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:27:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/30/2017 10:55 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/30/2017 9:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/29/2017 8:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/29/2017 6:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2017 6:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think my objective is to convince you. My objective is just to >>>>>>>>>>>> point out that you've made a number of mistakes. Whether you acknowledge >>>>>>>>>>>> them as mistakes is up to you. Some of them are pretty obvious and to >>>>>>>>>>>> not acknowledge them as mistakes seems rather foolish to me, but I won't >>>>>>>>>>>> deny your American liberty to be foolish. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OK, I will put the question to you one more time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question was already answered by me. See the previous posts just >>>>>>>>>> yesterday..... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now we take a clock on which the minute hand rotates only once per day.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK, you are saying what you have always said, you refuse to answer the question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I answered the relevant question, which has nothing to do with the >>>>>>>> little boondoggle you have posted about a rusty clock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, let's see your answer again. Irrelevant just does not cut it. You were going to >>>>>>> explain how Einstein's slower clock is different from the slower clocks in my experiment. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Already have explained it, Robert. Should I assume you cannot read? >>>>>> >>>>>> Recall I said that Einstein's clocks show a different elapsed time for a >>>>>> SPECIFIC PHYSICAL reason. Relativity does not apply to clocks that are >>>>>> slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or >>>>>> because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms. Only an outright >>>>>> idiot would try to use a rusty clock to make some point about what >>>>>> relativity predicts for slower clocks and resultant speeds. >>>>> >>>>> I was not talking about rusty or cheap clocks. I was talking about expensive and precise >>>>> clocks manufactured especially for the experiment. >>>> >>>> Alright, so let me amend my statement to say that relativity does not >>>> apply to clocks that are slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because >>>> of rust or dust, or because there is an insect stuck under one of the >>>> arms, or because it is deliberately and carefully designed to be a bad >>>> clock. >>>> >>>>> Your premise seems to be that any clock >>>>> which does not agree with a cesium clock under the same conditions is an outright idiot clock. >>>> >>>> Any clock which does not tick off one second when 9,192,631,770 periods >>>> of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two >>>> hyperfine levels of the ground state of a local and at-rest cesium 133 >>>> atom, is indeed an idiot clock. Any clock that does not tick off a >>>> second according to the local and at-rest definition of a second, is an >>>> idiot clock. >>> >>> OK, so we have established that there are idiot clocks and clocks you call scientific clocks. >>> That does not really confuse me. If you fly a scientific clock on an airplane, and compare >>> it with an identical scientific clock kept on earth after the flight of the airplane, the two >>> clocks will not agree with one another. >> >> That's right. >> >>> That can only mean one thing. During the flight of the airplane, the clock on the airplane >>> had a different rate than the clock on the ground. >> >> No, there are certainly other things it can mean. Now, I completely get >> that this is the only thing that seems to occur to you as to what it >> might mean. And so it's only natural for you to say, "Well, since this >> is the only thing I can think of, then it must be the only thing >> possible to explain it." But you see, other people learn what else it >> might mean. They don't resort to saying, "Well, if it's not the one >> thing I can think of, it must be magic then." > > I did not say anything about magic. You will in a moment.... > I can account for all times and rates of time. You are the one who believes in magic. See? There you are calling relativity magic. I don't believe in magic. I believe in relativity. Relativity accounts for the difference in the elapsed time on two clocks in relative motion with an explanation that involves neither magic nor one clock running slower than the other. I believe you are the one saying that if that clock is not running slower then the only other explanation has to be magic. > >> >>> So whether or not you call it a local and at-rest clock in its own frame of reference, >>> it has a different rate than the clock on the ground. >>> You have stated over and over that you do not want to discuss that. I think it is time to >>> say that we need to respect your superstitions and stop trying to get you to discuss things >>> your length contraction religion does not allow you to discuss.... > > You have learned a discipline, just as Muslim suicide bombers learn disciplines. It does > not matter to you that your discipline does not make sense. You are a fanatic who will do > what you have been taught without deviating from the discipline. > In science, the discipline is called "respecting the primacy of observational evidence". Now, perhaps you think this is a stupid and fanatical discipline, Robert. I think when you say "does not make sense", you must be meaning "does not make sense to Robert Winn". Because it DOES make sense to me, even if it doesn't to you. We've already discussed that intuition and common sense have very little value in assessing truth in science. I fully sympathize that a welder does not have much access to scientific observational data, nor does a welder spend a lot of time reading what the scientific theories actually say, and so for a welder intuition and common sense may be about the only thing he has to hang onto. This is why something that challenges that common sense and intuition leads to such emotional responses as comparing science to religion, magic, and suicide bombers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 11:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1923aa0b-b542-45b9-8d1d-5b41adc689ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407248 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:05:55 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/30/2017 12:49 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:27:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/30/2017 10:55 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/30/2017 9:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 1/29/2017 8:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 1/29/2017 6:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2017 6:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think my objective is to convince you. My objective is just to > >>>>>>>>>>>> point out that you've made a number of mistakes. Whether you acknowledge > >>>>>>>>>>>> them as mistakes is up to you. Some of them are pretty obvious and to > >>>>>>>>>>>> not acknowledge them as mistakes seems rather foolish to me, but I won't > >>>>>>>>>>>> deny your American liberty to be foolish. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> OK, I will put the question to you one more time. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The question was already answered by me. See the previous posts just > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday..... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Now we take a clock on which the minute hand rotates only once per day.... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant case. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> OK, you are saying what you have always said, you refuse to answer the question. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I answered the relevant question, which has nothing to do with the > >>>>>>>> little boondoggle you have posted about a rusty clock. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, let's see your answer again. Irrelevant just does not cut it. You were going to > >>>>>>> explain how Einstein's slower clock is different from the slower clocks in my experiment. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Already have explained it, Robert. Should I assume you cannot read? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Recall I said that Einstein's clocks show a different elapsed time for a > >>>>>> SPECIFIC PHYSICAL reason. Relativity does not apply to clocks that are > >>>>>> slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or > >>>>>> because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms. Only an outright > >>>>>> idiot would try to use a rusty clock to make some point about what > >>>>>> relativity predicts for slower clocks and resultant speeds. > >>>>> > >>>>> I was not talking about rusty or cheap clocks. I was talking about expensive and precise > >>>>> clocks manufactured especially for the experiment. > >>>> > >>>> Alright, so let me amend my statement to say that relativity does not > >>>> apply to clocks that are slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because > >>>> of rust or dust, or because there is an insect stuck under one of the > >>>> arms, or because it is deliberately and carefully designed to be a bad > >>>> clock. > >>>> > >>>>> Your premise seems to be that any clock > >>>>> which does not agree with a cesium clock under the same conditions is an outright idiot clock. > >>>> > >>>> Any clock which does not tick off one second when 9,192,631,770 periods > >>>> of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two > >>>> hyperfine levels of the ground state of a local and at-rest cesium 133 > >>>> atom, is indeed an idiot clock. Any clock that does not tick off a > >>>> second according to the local and at-rest definition of a second, is an > >>>> idiot clock. > >>> > >>> OK, so we have established that there are idiot clocks and clocks you call scientific clocks. > >>> That does not really confuse me. If you fly a scientific clock on an airplane, and compare > >>> it with an identical scientific clock kept on earth after the flight of the airplane, the two > >>> clocks will not agree with one another. > >> > >> That's right. > >> > >>> That can only mean one thing. During the flight of the airplane, the clock on the airplane > >>> had a different rate than the clock on the ground. > >> > >> No, there are certainly other things it can mean. Now, I completely get > >> that this is the only thing that seems to occur to you as to what it > >> might mean. And so it's only natural for you to say, "Well, since this > >> is the only thing I can think of, then it must be the only thing > >> possible to explain it." But you see, other people learn what else it > >> might mean. They don't resort to saying, "Well, if it's not the one > >> thing I can think of, it must be magic then." > > > > I did not say anything about magic. > > You will in a moment.... > > > I can account for all times and rates of time. You are the one who believes in magic. > > See? There you are calling relativity magic. > > I don't believe in magic. I believe in relativity. Relativity accounts > for the difference in the elapsed time on two clocks in relative motion > with an explanation that involves neither magic nor one clock running > slower than the other. I believe you are the one saying that if that > clock is not running slower then the only other explanation has to be magic. > > > Einstein was the one who said the clock in S' was running slower. So are you saying you disagree with Einstein? > >> > >>> So whether or not you call it a local and at-rest clock in its own frame of reference, > >>> it has a different rate than the clock on the ground. > >>> You have stated over and over that you do not want to discuss that. I think it is time to > >>> say that we need to respect your superstitions and stop trying to get you to discuss things > >>> your length contraction religion does not allow you to discuss.... > > > > You have learned a discipline, just as Muslim suicide bombers learn disciplines. It does > > not matter to you that your discipline does not make sense. You are a fanatic who will do > > what you have been taught without deviating from the discipline. > > > > In science, the discipline is called "respecting the primacy of > observational ev... Suicide bombers call it getting 26 virgins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 13:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o6o5na$vfi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407261 |
On 1/30/2017 1:45 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:05:55 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/30/2017 12:49 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:27:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/30/2017 10:55 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/30/2017 9:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/29/2017 8:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/2017 6:21 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2017 6:26 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think my objective is to convince you. My objective is just to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out that you've made a number of mistakes. Whether you acknowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them as mistakes is up to you. Some of them are pretty obvious and to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not acknowledge them as mistakes seems rather foolish to me, but I won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deny your American liberty to be foolish. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I will put the question to you one more time. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question was already answered by me. See the previous posts just >>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday..... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we take a clock on which the minute hand rotates only once per day.... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant case. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OK, you are saying what you have always said, you refuse to answer the question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I answered the relevant question, which has nothing to do with the >>>>>>>>>> little boondoggle you have posted about a rusty clock. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, let's see your answer again. Irrelevant just does not cut it. You were going to >>>>>>>>> explain how Einstein's slower clock is different from the slower clocks in my experiment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Already have explained it, Robert. Should I assume you cannot read? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Recall I said that Einstein's clocks show a different elapsed time for a >>>>>>>> SPECIFIC PHYSICAL reason. Relativity does not apply to clocks that are >>>>>>>> slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because of rust or dust, or >>>>>>>> because there is an insect stuck under one of the arms. Only an outright >>>>>>>> idiot would try to use a rusty clock to make some point about what >>>>>>>> relativity predicts for slower clocks and resultant speeds. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was not talking about rusty or cheap clocks. I was talking about expensive and precise >>>>>>> clocks manufactured especially for the experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alright, so let me amend my statement to say that relativity does not >>>>>> apply to clocks that are slow because of cheap manufacturing, or because >>>>>> of rust or dust, or because there is an insect stuck under one of the >>>>>> arms, or because it is deliberately and carefully designed to be a bad >>>>>> clock. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Your premise seems to be that any clock >>>>>>> which does not agree with a cesium clock under the same conditions is an outright idiot clock. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any clock which does not tick off one second when 9,192,631,770 periods >>>>>> of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two >>>>>> hyperfine levels of the ground state of a local and at-rest cesium 133 >>>>>> atom, is indeed an idiot clock. Any clock that does not tick off a >>>>>> second according to the local and at-rest definition of a second, is an >>>>>> idiot clock. >>>>> >>>>> OK, so we have established that there are idiot clocks and clocks you call scientific clocks. >>>>> That does not really confuse me. If you fly a scientific clock on an airplane, and compare >>>>> it with an identical scientific clock kept on earth after the flight of the airplane, the two >>>>> clocks will not agree with one another. >>>> >>>> That's right. >>>> >>>>> That can only mean one thing. During the flight of the airplane, the clock on the airplane >>>>> had a different rate than the clock on the ground. >>>> >>>> No, there are certainly other things it can mean. Now, I completely get >>>> that this is the only thing that seems to occur to you as to what it >>>> might mean. And so it's only natural for you to say, "Well, since this >>>> is the only thing I can think of, then it must be the only thing >>>> possible to explain it." But you see, other people learn what else it >>>> might mean. They don't resort to saying, "Well, if it's not the one >>>> thing I can think of, it must be magic then." >>> >>> I did not say anything about magic. >> >> You will in a moment.... >> >>> I can account for all times and rates of time. You are the one who believes in magic. >> >> See? There you are calling relativity magic. >> >> I don't believe in magic. I believe in relativity. Relativity accounts >> for the difference in the elapsed time on two clocks in relative motion >> with an explanation that involves neither magic nor one clock running >> slower than the other. I believe you are the one saying that if that >> clock is not running slower then the only other explanation has to be magic. >> >>> > Einstein was the one who said the clock in S' was running slower. > So are you saying you disagree with Einstein? I think if you read some better treatments of relativity than what Einstein attempted in 1905, you'll get some better clarity. Einstein, however, did explain in the 1905 paper why the clock time on the moving clock records less elapsed time, and it didn't have to do with the clock running more slowly. Einstein was the originator of special relativity, but he by no means claims the final and comprehensive word on the physical meaning of relativity. Dozens of physicists had to work on it before that got to be better understood. >>>> >>>>> So whether or not you call it a local and at-rest clock in its own frame of reference, >>>>> it has a different rate than the clock on the ground. >>>>> You have stated over and over that you do not want to discuss that. I think it is time to >>>>> say that we need to respect your superstitions and stop trying to get you to discuss things >>>>> your length contraction religion does not allow you to discuss.... >>> >>> You have learned a discipline, just as Muslim suicide bombers learn disciplines. It does >>> not matter to you that your discipline does not make sense. You are a fanatic who will do >>> what you have been taught without deviating from the discipline. >>> >> >> In science, the discipline is called "respecting the primacy of >> observational ev... > > Suicide bombers call it getting 26 virgins. Well, as I said, Robert, if the scientific method reminds you of jihadist extremism and suicide bombers, then perhaps you are having a deeply emotional reaction about science. I personally am not inclined to react so emotionally to the scientific method, but I don't think that makes me a fanatic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 14:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64fc02cc-7417-4070-9867-7612b3e64209@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407263 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/30/2017 1:45 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:05:55 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/30/2017 12:49 PM, Rob > >> > >>> I can account for all times and rates of time. You are the one who believes in magic. > >> > >> See? There you are calling relativity magic. > >> > >> I don't believe in magic. I believe in relativity. Relativity accounts > >> for the difference in the elapsed time on two clocks in relative motion > >> with an explanation that involves neither magic nor one clock running > >> slower than the other. I believe you are the one saying that if that > >> clock is not running slower then the only other explanation has to be magic. > >> > >>> > > Einstein was the one who said the clock in S' was running slower. > > So are you saying you disagree with Einstein? > > I think if you read some better treatments of relativity than what > Einstein attempted in 1905, you'll get some better clarity. Einstein, > however, did explain in the 1905 paper why the clock time on the moving > clock records less elapsed time, and it didn't have to do with the clock > running more slowly. > > Einstein was the originator of special relativity, but he by no means > claims the final and comprehensive word on the physical meaning of > relativity. Dozens of physicists had to work on it before that got to be > better understood. > Einstein plainly stated that the moving clock was slower. So you are saying that more modern disciples are trying to explain away the discrepancy. > >>>>> So whether or not you call it a local and at-rest clock in its own frame of reference, > >>>>> it has a different rate than the clock on the ground. > >>>>> You have stated over and over that you do not want to discuss that. I think it is time to > >>>>> say that we need to respect your superstitions and stop trying to get you to discuss things > >>>>> your length contraction religion does not allow you to discuss.... > >>> > >>> You have learned a discipline, just as Muslim suicide bombers learn disciplines. It does > >>> not matter to you that your discipline does not make sense. You are a fanatic who will do > >>> what you have been taught without deviating from the discipline. > >>> > >> > >> In science, the discipline is called "respecting the primacy of > >> observational ev... > > > > Suicide bombers call it getting 26 virgins. > > Well, as I said, Robert, if the scientific method reminds you of > jihadist extremism and suicide bombers, then perhaps you are having a > deeply emotional reaction about science. I personally am not inclined to > react so emotionally to the scientific method, but I don't think that > makes me a fanatic. Well, there are differences. A jihadist only takes out about 50 people at the most in a typical bombing. Einstien disciples can take out hundreds of thousands or even millions because they can make a bigger explosion. I don't get emotional about it. I think it can be shown that there are better things to do than kill other people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 21:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o6o8j9$148j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407261 |
Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:05:55 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: .... >> In science, the discipline is called "respecting the primacy of >> observational ev... > > Suicide bombers call it getting 26 virgins. There is no doubt, for any decent people who would have read the current thread, Mr Winn, than if one of Odd Bodkin or you have this kind of fanatic view, it is you, Mr Winn, not Mr Bodkin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 14:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3566678f-a786-425e-9af4-10fe164df0f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407272 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:44:28 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:05:55 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > .... > >> In science, the discipline is called "respecting the primacy of > >> observational ev... > > > > Suicide bombers call it getting 26 virgins. > > There is no doubt, for any decent people who would have read the > current thread, Mr Winn, than if one of Odd Bodkin or you have > this kind of fanatic view, it is you, Mr Winn, not Mr Bodkin. Why do you say that, Python? All I was doing was trying to point out a mathematical error. You and Odd Bodkin have said that you are dedicated to perpetuating the error, so that is what you will do. It has nothing to do with me. I said at the beginning of the conversation that I was going to use the Galilean transformation equations. People using the mathematics you follow have killed hundreds of thousands of people. I have not killed any. Your complaint against me is that I use equations you have forbidden to be used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 00:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o6ogis$1g92$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407282 |
Le 30/01/2017 à 23:30, Robert Winn a écrit : > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:44:28 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:05:55 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> .... >>>> In science, the discipline is called "respecting the primacy of >>>> observational ev... >>> >>> Suicide bombers call it getting 26 virgins. >> >> There is no doubt, for any decent people who would have read the >> current thread, Mr Winn, than if one of Odd Bodkin or you have >> this kind of fanatic view, it is you, Mr Winn, not Mr Bodkin. > > Why do you say that, Python? All I was doing was trying to point out a > mathematical error. You and Odd Bodkin have said that you are dedicated > to perpetuating the error, so that is what you will do. It has nothing > to do with me. I said at the beginning of the conversation that I was > going to use the Galilean transformation equations. People using the > mathematics you follow have killed hundreds of thousands of people. > I have not killed any. Your complaint against me is that I use equations > you have forbidden to be used. All your sentences confirm my point, Mr Winn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 15:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42e78ded-483d-43d5-b5e5-2231ac374b56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407288 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:00:48 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Le 30/01/2017 à 23:30, Robert Winn a écrit : > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:44:28 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >> Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:05:55 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> .... > >>>> In science, the discipline is called "respecting the primacy of > >>>> observational ev... > >>> > >>> Suicide bombers call it getting 26 virgins. > >> > >> There is no doubt, for any decent people who would have read the > >> current thread, Mr Winn, than if one of Odd Bodkin or you have > >> this kind of fanatic view, it is you, Mr Winn, not Mr Bodkin. > > > > Why do you say that, Python? All I was doing was trying to point out a > > mathematical error. You and Odd Bodkin have said that you are dedicated > > to perpetuating the error, so that is what you will do. It has nothing > > to do with me. I said at the beginning of the conversation that I was > > going to use the Galilean transformation equations. People using the > > mathematics you follow have killed hundreds of thousands of people. > > I have not killed any. Your complaint against me is that I use equations > > you have forbidden to be used. > > All your sentences confirm my point, Mr Winn. Well, I certainly believe you really are that paranoid. I did not say anything that was untrue. Maybe you believe the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not really people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 27 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 25 26 [27] 28 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web