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 24 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 26 … 29 Next page →
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 19:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o757no$151s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407855 |
Le 04/02/2017 à 19:43, Robert Winn a écrit : > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:42:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:07:29 PM UTC-7, 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. >> >> Which unfounded assertion is pure silliness. > > > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. Or show that there are not two rates of time. Your statement says you can do this, so go ahead and do it. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'= t-vx/c^2 > > Inverse Equations > > x = x' - v't' > y = y' > z = z' > t = t' - v'x'/c^2 >> >>>> 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. >> >> Winn presents an impossible challenge because he has a hermetically-sealed >> mind that says, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up." >> >> “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” >> -- Benjamin Franklin > > About twenty years ago I posted my first post in sci.physics.relativity stating > that the Galilean transformation equations could be used to show a constant speed > for light. I have now done that with a complete set of equations, fully explained. If you use your equations for light propagation equations such as y = ct or x = L - ct, they do not show a constant speed for light. Your claim is as wrong today as it was twenty years ago, Mr Winn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1b03f22-b99a-42d2-8c6f-b9bed81e1eeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407859 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Le 04/02/2017 à 19:43, Robert Winn a écrit : > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:42:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:07:29 PM UTC-7, 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. > >> > >> Which unfounded assertion is pure silliness. > > > > > > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. Or show that there are not two rates of time. Your statement says you can do this, so go ahead and do it. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'= t-vx/c^2 > > > > Inverse Equations > > > > x = x' - v't' > > y = y' > > z = z' > > t = t' - v'x'/c^2 > >> > >>>> 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. > >> > >> Winn presents an impossible challenge because he has a hermetically-sealed > >> mind that says, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up." > >> > >> “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” > >> -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > About twenty years ago I posted my first post in sci.physics.relativity stating > > that the Galilean transformation equations could be used to show a constant speed > > for light. I have now done that with a complete set of equations, fully explained. > > If you use your equations for light propagation equations such as > y = ct or x = L - ct, they do not show a constant speed for light. > > Your claim is as wrong today as it was twenty years ago, Mr Winn. You are wrong, which shows that you have never tried to do what you advocate. These equations do everything the Lorentz equations do, with the exception that they do not have a length contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 20:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o75bdj$1au7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407864 |
Le 04/02/2017 à 20:40, Robert Winn a écrit : > You are wrong, which shows that you have never tried to do what you advocate. > These equations do everything the Lorentz equations do, with the exception > that they do not have a length contraction. This is not true Mr Winn. Let us consider the light propagation equations in frame S: x = 0 y = ct z = 0 Then use your own equations: > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'= t-vx/c^2 to find out what are the propagation equations in S': x' = 0 - vt y' = ct z' = 0 t' = t - vx/c^2 so, if you express x', y' and z' in term of t': x' = -vt' y' = ct' z' = 0 which gives a speed of sqrt(v^2+c^2) different of c. As an exercise you may try the same procedure with Lorentz Transformation equations, you will end up with a speed of c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 12:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6dbb027a-2f15-4ae0-984c-37653e7493e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407865 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:52:23 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> Le 04/02/2017 à 20:40, Robert Winn a écrit :
> > You are wrong, which shows that you have never tried to do what you advocate.
> > These equations do everything the Lorentz equations do, with the exception
> > that they do not have a length contraction.
>
> This is not true Mr Winn. Let us consider the light propagation
> equations in frame S:
>
> x = 0
> y = ct
> z = 0
>
> Then use your own equations:
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'= t-vx/c^2
>
> to find out what are the propagation equations in S':
>
> x' = 0 - vt
> y' = ct
> z' = 0
> t' = t - vx/c^2
>
> so, if you express x', y' and z' in term of t':
>
> x' = -vt'
> y' = ct'
> z' = 0
>
> which gives a speed of sqrt(v^2+c^2) different of c.
>
> As an exercise you may try the same procedure with Lorentz
> Transformation equations, you will end up with a speed of
> c.
Well, obviously, you did not follow the equations. If you express x',y' and z' in terms of t', then you have to use v', not v.
v'= -vt/t'
Just because Isaac Newton was able to use v and v' interchangeably in his absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations, does not mean you can do so with these equations. As I said at the beginning of this conversation, if you have a slower clock, the time of that clock indicates a faster speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o75dks$1ecd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407868 |
Le 04/02/2017 à 21:26, Robert Winn a écrit : >> so, if you express x', y' and z' in term of t': >> >> x' = -vt' >> y' = ct' >> z' = 0 >> >> which gives a speed of sqrt(v^2+c^2) different of c. >> >> As an exercise you may try the same procedure with Lorentz >> Transformation equations, you will end up with a speed of >> c. > > Well, obviously, you did not follow the equations. I did. You do have some issues with elementary algebra, Mr Winn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 12:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19c11bbe-e4cb-429b-a2c6-ffa0bb939b6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407855 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:43:53 AM UTC-7, Windy Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:42:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:07:29 PM UTC-7, 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. > > > > Which unfounded assertion is pure silliness. > > > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. Or > show that there are not two rates of time. Your statement says you can do > this, so go ahead and do it. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'= t-vx/c^2 Dishonest Windy Winn tries to pull another dishonest Pharisee lawyer trick. Anyone with a smattering of honesty and sense knows that those are NOT the Lorentz transform equations. He intentionally "forgot" to write them correctly: x' = gamma*(x - v*t) t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2) gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > Inverse Equations > > x = x' - v't' > y = y' > z = z' > t = t' - v'x'/c^2 Furthermore, these aren't even the inverse of the equations he proffered. Anyone who knows anything about transforms knows that all you have to do is to move the -v*t term to the other side of the equation and it becomes +v*t, similarly for t: x = x' + v*t t = t' + v*x/c^2 So, x = x' + v*(t' + v*x/c^2) = x' + v*t' + v^2*x/c^2 And then (1 - v^2/c^2)*x = x' + v*t' x = (x' + v*t')/(1 - v^2/c^2) which does NOT agree with what Windy Winn claimed. Now let's see him try to come up with an equation for his really stupid v' :-))) > > > > 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. > > > > Winn presents an impossible challenge because he has a hermetically-sealed > > mind that says, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made > > up." > > > > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > About twenty years ago I posted my first post in sci.physics.relativity > stating that the Galilean transformation equations could be used to show > a constant speed for light. You were wrong then just as you are now. So you've spent 20 wasted years and haven't learned anything, except to be dishonest. How sad! > I have now done that with a complete set of equations, fully explained. > So what you are telling me is that you do not understand what I said. Au contraire, canard, I DO understand what you're saying, and it is as fragrant as cow plop. > I do not really care w... So why do you keep posting? Are you insane? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 21:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f5a91e6-5747-4473-af5a-1dda29e6aaaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407875 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:43:53 AM UTC-7, Windy Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:42:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 9:07:29 PM UTC-7, 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.
> > >
> > > Which unfounded assertion is pure silliness.
> >
> >
> > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. Or
> > show that there are not two rates of time. Your statement says you can do
> > this, so go ahead and do it.
> >
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'= t-vx/c^2
>
> Dishonest Windy Winn tries to pull another dishonest Pharisee lawyer trick.
> Anyone with a smattering of honesty and sense knows that those are NOT the
> Lorentz transform equations. He intentionally "forgot" to write them
> correctly:
>
> x' = gamma*(x - v*t)
> t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2)
>
> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>
> > Inverse Equations
> >
> > x = x' - v't'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = t' - v'x'/c^2
>
> Furthermore, these aren't even the inverse of the equations he proffered.
> Anyone who knows anything about transforms knows that all you have to do
> is to move the -v*t term to the other side of the equation and it becomes
> +v*t, similarly for t:
>
> x = x' + v*t
>
> t = t' + v*x/c^2
>
> So,
>
> x = x' + v*(t' + v*x/c^2) = x' + v*t' + v^2*x/c^2
>
> And then
>
> (1 - v^2/c^2)*x = x' + v*t'
>
> x = (x' + v*t')/(1 - v^2/c^2)
>
> which does NOT agree with what Windy Winn claimed. Now let's see him try
> to come up with an equation for his really stupid v' :-)))
First of all, I said the above equations were what Odd Bodkin calls the Winn transformation equations. I have never said they were the Lorentz equations. I have always said they were not the Lorentz equations. Now, I do not personally like what Odd Bodkin calls the Winn transformation equations, but I post them once in a while when modern science advocates say they want an equation like the Lorentz equation for time, saying that they do not like two sets of Galilean transformation equations, which is my personal preference. So I am going to post two sets of Galilean transformation equations, explaining what all the variables mean, and then you can try to find the mistake you claim exists. Here is a set of Galilean transformation equations as seen from frame of reference S.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Now you can use all of the equations you say you want to use in this set of equations. Isaac Newton used to do it, scientists before 1887 did it. It can be done. See the two little horizontal lines between t' and t? They are called an equal sign. That means that if I define t to be the time of a clock in S, then t' is also the time of a clock in S. If there is another clock in S' that has a slower rate as Einstein says, then that clock is not shown in this set of Galilean transformation equations. So go ahead and use the values for y and L and all the other things you said could not be done until you are satisfied that what Isaac Newton and other scientists were doing with these equations can actually be done.
What we are going to do now is create another set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time because this time we are measuring time by a slower clock in S'. This set of equations is inverse to the first set because we are observing times and distances from S' according to the time of a slower clock in S' that Einstein said was there.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of a slower clock in S' which Einstein said was there and all scientists since him say they have proven exists. v' is the velocity of S relative to S' according to the time of the slower clock. What is the value of v'? Well, v' = -vt/n', where v is the velocity in the first set of equations.
Now let us consider the two sets of equations. x,y,z,x', y', and z' are the same in both sets of equations. I know how difficult this must seem, but there is no length contraction in the Galilean transformation equations. In like manner, vt is the same distance as v't'. These distances are actually interchangeable. All you have to do is keep the velocities right. vt in the first set of equations is the same as -v'n' in the second set.
I know how difficult this is going to seem, but we are talking about the same velocities and times in both sets of equations. The only thing different is the rates of the clocks measuring the times. A second of the clock in the second set of equations is a longer time than a second of the clock in the first set of equations. If light is measured to be traveling at c= 186,000 miles per second in both sets of equations, then n'= t-vx/c^2.
So whatever you were doing with Newton's ideas in the first set of equations can also be done in the second set of equations, except that your equation for time is n=n', and your apparent velocity v' is faster.
So far all you have said to me is that you cannot understand that there is a mechanical relationship between clocks with varying rates. I have given you the equation you asked for, v'= -vt/n', as it applies to two sets of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity. With regard to the equations that Odd Bodkin calls the Winn transformation equations, the equation would be v'= -vt/t'. The equations for time in that transformation are
t'= t - vx/c^2
t = t' - v'x'/c^2
So go ahead and show the mistake you say you keep finding. As I understand your post, you are going to show that the equation v'= -vt/t' is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 05:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8402dc3-4ac4-46ae-b00d-1f83c0afcfc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407924 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:41:11 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:43:53 AM UTC-7, Windy Winn wrote: > > > > > > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. Or > > > show that there are not two rates of time. Your statement says you can do > > > this, so go ahead and do it. > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t'= t-vx/c^2 > > > > Dishonest Windy Winn tries to pull another dishonest Pharisee lawyer trick. > > Anyone with a smattering of honesty and sense knows that those are NOT the > > Lorentz transform equations. He intentionally "forgot" to write them > > correctly: > > > > x' = gamma*(x - v*t) > > t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2) > > > > gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > > Inverse Equations > > > > > > x = x' - v't' > > > y = y' > > > z = z' > > > t = t' - v'x'/c^2 > > > > Furthermore, these aren't even the inverse of the equations he proffered. > > Anyone who knows anything about transforms knows that all you have to do > > is to move the -v*t term to the other side of the equation and it becomes > > +v*t, similarly for t: > > > > x = x' + v*t > > > > t = t' + v*x/c^2 > > > > So, > > > > x = x' + v*(t' + v*x/c^2) = x' + v*t' + v^2*x/c^2 > > > > And then > > > > (1 - v^2/c^2)*x = x' + v*t' > > > > x = (x' + v*t')/(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > which does NOT agree with what Windy Winn claimed. Now let's see him try > > to come up with an equation for his really stupid v' :-))) > > First of all, I said the above equations were what Odd Bodkin calls the > Winn transformation equations. Nope. He said the double Galilean transform that you persistently peddle are the Winn equations. You're lying -- again. > I have never said they were the Lorentz equations. Then why are you trying to pretend that the false crap you posted would have anything to do with reality? And then why would you falsely claim the so-called "inverse" equations were actually an inverse of the crappy baloney you invented whole cloth? Neither your double-GT nor your fake equations with "-vx/c^2" have anything to do with reality. > Now, I do not personally like what Odd Bodkin calls the Winn transformation > equations, but I post them once in a while when modern science advocates > say they want an equation like the Lorentz equation for time, saying that > they do not like two sets of Galilean transformation equations, which is my > personal preference. Personal preferences are often irrational. > So I am going to post two sets of Galilean transformation equations, [Regurgitated baloney deleted for mental sanity] My personal belief is that you are mentally imbalanced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 07:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7797fc93-86d0-4757-88a1-95dff713b3d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407936 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:03:44 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:41:11 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:43:53 AM UTC-7, Windy Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. Or
> > > > show that there are not two rates of time. Your statement says you can do
> > > > this, so go ahead and do it.
> > > >
> > > > x'=x-vt
> > > > y'=y
> > > > z'=z
> > > > t'= t-vx/c^2
> > >
> > > Dishonest Windy Winn tries to pull another dishonest Pharisee lawyer trick.
> > > Anyone with a smattering of honesty and sense knows that those are NOT the
> > > Lorentz transform equations. He intentionally "forgot" to write them
> > > correctly:
> > >
> > > x' = gamma*(x - v*t)
> > > t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2)
> > >
> > > gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> > >
> > > > Inverse Equations
> > > >
> > > > x = x' - v't'
> > > > y = y'
> > > > z = z'
> > > > t = t' - v'x'/c^2
> > >
> > > Furthermore, these aren't even the inverse of the equations he proffered.
> > > Anyone who knows anything about transforms knows that all you have to do
> > > is to move the -v*t term to the other side of the equation and it becomes
> > > +v*t, similarly for t:
> > >
> > > x = x' + v*t
> > >
> > > t = t' + v*x/c^2
> > >
> > > So,
> > >
> > > x = x' + v*(t' + v*x/c^2) = x' + v*t' + v^2*x/c^2
> > >
> > > And then
> > >
> > > (1 - v^2/c^2)*x = x' + v*t'
> > >
> > > x = (x' + v*t')/(1 - v^2/c^2)
> > >
> > > which does NOT agree with what Windy Winn claimed. Now let's see him try
> > > to come up with an equation for his really stupid v' :-)))
> >
> > First of all, I said the above equations were what Odd Bodkin calls the
> > Winn transformation equations.
>
> Nope. He said the double Galilean transform that you persistently peddle
> are the Winn equations. You're lying -- again.
>
> > I have never said they were the Lorentz equations.
>
> Then why are you trying to pretend that the false crap you posted would
> have anything to do with reality? And then why would you falsely claim
> the so-called "inverse" equations were actually an inverse of the crappy
> baloney you invented whole cloth?
>
> Neither your double-GT nor your f...
I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. I know how distressing this must seem to worshipers of Dr. Albert Einstein, but the equations hold together mathematically. If the velocities are too complicated for people in science to understand, that is too bad, but it does not affect the equations themselves.
Now here is the problem as I see it. We have had a hundred years of Harry Potter magic which was called science. That makes it difficult to explain to the people who see themselves as wizards that there is an actual mechanics by which the universe operates. So now we come to the principle of science which these wizards have neglected in their explanation of what was going on, and they are at a loss when it is put in the form of equations.
So I think that this disagreement is going to continue for some time, perhaps even for centuries, the same as the world saw happen with Ptolemaic astronomy.
Now with regard as to which equations are the Winn transformation equations, I am Winn, so I get to say which equations are the Winn transformation. I say they are these.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t-vx/c^2
Inverse equations
x = x' - v't'
y = y'
z = z'
t = t'-v'x'/c^2
As scientists have stated for twenty years, these equations are obviously too complicated for scientists to understand because of the knowledge of velocities required. So they are worthless when it comes to trying to communicate with scientists. As far as this world is concerned, they are just an oddity which few people will ever know about because if scientists are not going to work the math, neither is anyone else.
But this Winn transformation is just a special case of the Galilean transformation equations, which is also what the Lorentz equations are. They are really derived from two sets of Galilean transformation equations which describe the physical relationship of two clocks with different rates of time. I know how difficult this must seem.
One clock
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
The other clock
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
See, we do not use the same variables for time in the second set of equations because the clock being described in the second set of equations has a different rate than the clock in the first set of equations. I know how wrong this must seem to scientists, but we are following axioms of junior high algebra, not scientists.
Now with regard to your idea about velocities, you stated that all you have to do is move vt to the other side of the equation, and you have taken care of velocities. That is true if you are Isaac Newton and do not know about clocks slowing down and speeding up like Einstein and scientists of today know. So here is what Isaac Newton was doing.
x'=x-vt
x'+vt=x
This seemed to scientists like a principle upon which to base all science, but it only works if all clocks in the universe agree with each other, as Isaac Newton was assuming with his absolute time idea. The equations are just as true as when Newton used them, but they do not say a thing about a slower clock. All they are saying is t'=t, or, in other words, the same measurement of time is being used in both frames of reference. So now since Einstein, we have a slower clock, which all scientists agree exists, but which magically results in the same velocity between frames of reference as the time of a faster clock. As you will notice, the second set of Galilean transformation equations results in a different velocity, which was true even in Newton's calculation. In his absolute time calculations he had
v'= -v. So his equations would have been
x'=x-vt
t'=t
x = x' - v't'
t = t'
v' = -v
But modern scientists, accustomed to only using speed of light, speed of this, and speed of that, in their effort to be more efficient as modern scientists, have evidently forgotten all these previous mechanics of velocity and just use what they perceive as a simpler form
x'=x-vt
x = x'+ vt
which is what they do in the Lorentz equations, not understanding in any way what it means or why it works for them.
Your personal belief that I am mentally unbalanced because I understand velocities and you do not means nothing to me. I think it is wonderful that you can function in society with the limited knowledge you have, but a deeper understanding of how velocities interact can benefit any person. But we all know how rebellious and unique scientists are trying to be. I would expect that there will be a couple of more centuries of what we are observing now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 09:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o77hgn$8ci$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407957 |
On 2/5/2017 9:40 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. Equations being mathematically consistent has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they correspond to reality. What ever gave you the idea otherwise? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 08:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7d490d41-e086-4ec5-ab56-fea213e7a80b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407959 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/5/2017 9:40 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. > > Equations being mathematically consistent has nothing whatsoever to do > with whether they correspond to reality. What ever gave you the idea > otherwise? > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, I think it was the fact that the only thing you can come up with as an objection to the equations I post is the fact that they do not have a length contraction, which you claim has been proven in some unspecified experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 10:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o77l8r$ede$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407982 |
On 2/5/2017 10:51 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/5/2017 9:40 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. >> >> Equations being mathematically consistent has nothing whatsoever to do >> with whether they correspond to reality. What ever gave you the idea >> otherwise? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, I think it was the fact that the only thing you can come up with as an > objection to the equations I post is the fact that they do not have a length > contraction, which you claim has been proven in some unspecified experiment. > And that's enough. It's up to you to learn the experimental fact that disproves your hypothesis. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 11:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o77mq9$hfj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407983 |
On 2/5/2017 10:52 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/5/2017 10:51 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >> On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 2/5/2017 9:40 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>> I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. >>> >>> Equations being mathematically consistent has nothing whatsoever to do >>> with whether they correspond to reality. What ever gave you the idea >>> otherwise? >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> Well, I think it was the fact that the only thing you can come up with >> as an >> objection to the equations I post is the fact that they do not have a >> length >> contraction, which you claim has been proven in some unspecified >> experiment. >> > > And that's enough. > > It's up to you to learn the experimental fact that disproves your > hypothesis. > Maybe what you're trying to say is that you do not have awareness of many experimental facts, and that you are going to continue to believe equations that do not allow for those facts to be true, until someone goes to the trouble to make you aware of them. I think you certainly have the right and the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe, Robert, regardless of facts that you may or may not be aware of. As they say, ignorance is bliss. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 20:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <589925cb$0$10722$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #407987 |
On 2/5/2017 12:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/5/2017 10:52 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/5/2017 10:51 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/5/2017 9:40 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. >>>> >>>> Equations being mathematically consistent has nothing whatsoever to do >>>> with whether they correspond to reality. What ever gave you the idea >>>> otherwise? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Well, I think it was the fact that the only thing you can come up with >>> as an >>> objection to the equations I post is the fact that they do not have a >>> length >>> contraction, which you claim has been proven in some unspecified >>> experiment. >>> >> >> And that's enough. >> >> It's up to you to learn the experimental fact that disproves your >> hypothesis. >> > > Maybe what you're trying to say is that you do not have awareness of > many experimental facts, and that you are going to continue to believe > equations that do not allow for those facts to be true, until someone > goes to the trouble to make you aware of them. > > I think you certainly have the right and the freedom to believe whatever > you want to believe, Robert, regardless of facts that you may or may not > be aware of. As they say, ignorance is bliss. > > And believe me, Odd has LOTS of experience with what they say!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 10:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19981a0f-99f7-40f5-bb61-cae4919350b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407983 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 9:52:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/5/2017 10:51 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/5/2017 9:40 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. > >> > >> Equations being mathematically consistent has nothing whatsoever to do > >> with whether they correspond to reality. What ever gave you the idea > >> otherwise? > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Well, I think it was the fact that the only thing you can come up with as an > > objection to the equations I post is the fact that they do not have a length > > contraction, which you claim has been proven in some unspecified experiment. > > > > And that's enough. > > It's up to you to learn the experimental fact that disproves your > hypothesis. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, no, if you think you have such proof, it is up to you to post it right here in sci.physics.relativity. Otherwise you are just another modern science apologist posting links to irrelevant discussions about the Lorentz equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7aj47$u2d$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407998 |
On 2/5/2017 12:50 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 9:52:46 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/5/2017 10:51 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/5/2017 9:40 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. >>>> >>>> Equations being mathematically consistent has nothing whatsoever to do >>>> with whether they correspond to reality. What ever gave you the idea >>>> otherwise? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Well, I think it was the fact that the only thing you can come up with as an >>> objection to the equations I post is the fact that they do not have a length >>> contraction, which you claim has been proven in some unspecified experiment. >>> >> >> And that's enough. >> >> It's up to you to learn the experimental fact that disproves your >> hypothesis. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, no, if you think you have such proof, it is up to you to post it right here > in sci.physics.relativity. Otherwise you are just another modern science apologist > posting links to irrelevant discussions about the Lorentz equations. > Well, no, Robert, it is NOT up to me to post it right here on sci.physics.relativity. That's the point. Not bringing facts into sci.physics.relativity for your convenience does not make the facts nonexistence. What it does mean is that you will have very little success trying to make people feel obligated to do what you want them to do. If you care to learn the facts about the world, you can research them. If you do not care to know facts about the world, you can elect not to. The choice is entirely yours whether to remain uneducated or not. You'll not find a single person coming to your door forcing you to educate yourself. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 08:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8cd54c9-9ee1-41ac-9888-ff1187167ad3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407957 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:40:19 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:03:44 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:41:11 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:43:53 AM UTC-7, Windy Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length > > > > > contraction. Or show that there are not two rates of time. > > > > > Your statement says you can do this, so go ahead and do it. > > > > > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > > > > y'=y > > > > > z'=z > > > > > t'= t-vx/c^2 > > > > > > > > Dishonest Windy Winn tries to pull another dishonest Pharisee lawyer > > > > trick. Anyone with a smattering of honesty and sense knows that > > > > those are NOT the Lorentz transform equations. He intentionally > > > > "forgot" to write them correctly: > > > > > > > > x' = gamma*(x - v*t) > > > > t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2) > > > > > > > > gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > > Inverse Equations > > > > > > > > > > x = x' - v't' > > > > > y = y' > > > > > z = z' > > > > > t = t' - v'x'/c^2 > > > > > > > > Furthermore, these aren't even the inverse of the equations he > > > > proffered. Anyone who knows anything about transforms knows that > > > > all you have to do is to move the -v*t term to the other side of > > > > the equation and it becomes +v*t, similarly for t: > > > > > > > > x = x' + v*t > > > > > > > > t = t' + v*x/c^2 > > > > > > > > So, > > > > > > > > x = x' + v*(t' + v*x/c^2) = x' + v*t' + v^2*x/c^2 > > > > > > > > And then > > > > > > > > (1 - v^2/c^2)*x = x' + v*t' > > > > > > > > x = (x' + v*t')/(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > which does NOT agree with what Windy Winn claimed. Now let's see > > > > him try to come up with an equation for his really stupid v' :-))) > > > > > > First of all, I said the above equations were what Odd Bodkin calls the > > > Winn transformation equations. > > > > Nope. He said the double Galilean transform that you persistently peddle > > are the Winn equations. You're lying -- again. > > > > > I have never said they were the Lorentz equations. > > > > Then why are you trying to pretend that the false crap you posted would > > have anything to do with reality? And then why would you falsely claim > > the so-called "inverse" equations were actually an inverse of the crappy > > baloney you invented whole cloth? > > > > Neither your double-GT nor your f... > > I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. No, they're not. I proved that the what you claimed were the inverse are NOT the inverse. You lied -- again! > I know how distressing this must seem to worshipers of Dr. Albert Einstein, The only things that distress me are people who lie and people who display arrogance and stupidity. You do all three. > but the equations hold together mathematically. Liar! I proved that they don't. Furthermore, they don't describe reality. > If the velocities are too complicated for people in science to understand, Velocity is a very simple thing. It is (v2 - v1)/(t2 - t1). It can also be determined using the Doppler effect: f = f0*(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) for receding source/detector. Reverse the + and - for approaching s/d. Radar gun measurements refute your v' idea. > that is too bad, but it does not affect the equations themselves. What is too bad is that you can't understand reality. > Now here is the problem as I see it. We have had a hundred years of Harry > Potter magic which was called science. Yep, you are a delusional crackpot and a crank. > That makes it difficult to explain to the people who see themselves as > wizards that there is an actual mechanics by which the universe operates. You are describing yourself, but you're too delusional to know it. > So now we come to the principle of science which these wizards have > neglected in their explanation of what was going on, and they are at a > loss when it is put in the form of equations. You are delusional and wrong -- again. The equations are the LT. > So I think that this disagreement is going to continue for some time, > perhaps even for centuries, You won't live that long. It will disappear when you die. > the same as the world saw happen with Ptolemaic astronomy. > Now with regard as to which equations are the Winn transformation equations, > I am Winn, so I get to say which equations are the Winn transformation. > I say they are these. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t-vx/c^2 > > Inverse equations > > x = x' - v't' > y = y' > z = z' > t = t'-v'x'/c^2 I proved mathematically that your inverse is dead wrong. > As scientists have stated for twenty years, these equations are obviously > too complicated for scientists to understand because of the knowledge of > velocities required. Nope. You're lying -- again. > [Regurgitated cow plop deleted to maintain sanitation restrictions]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 09:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61dc6cd7-a181-4d78-aec5-e39cac437a22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407977 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 9:43:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:40:19 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:03:44 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:41:11 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:43:53 AM UTC-7, Windy Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length > > > > > > contraction. Or show that there are not two rates of time. > > > > > > Your statement says you can do this, so go ahead and do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > > > > > y'=y > > > > > > z'=z > > > > > > t'= t-vx/c^2 > > > > > > > > > > Dishonest Windy Winn tries to pull another dishonest Pharisee lawyer > > > > > trick. Anyone with a smattering of honesty and sense knows that > > > > > those are NOT the Lorentz transform equations. He intentionally > > > > > "forgot" to write them correctly: > > > > > > > > > > x' = gamma*(x - v*t) > > > > > t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > > Inverse Equations > > > > > > > > > > > > x = x' - v't' > > > > > > y = y' > > > > > > z = z' > > > > > > t = t' - v'x'/c^2 > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, these aren't even the inverse of the equations he > > > > > proffered. Anyone who knows anything about transforms knows that > > > > > all you have to do is to move the -v*t term to the other side of > > > > > the equation and it becomes +v*t, similarly for t: > > > > > > > > > > x = x' + v*t > > > > > > > > > > t = t' + v*x/c^2 > > > > > > > > > > So, > > > > > > > > > > x = x' + v*(t' + v*x/c^2) = x' + v*t' + v^2*x/c^2 > > > > > > > > > > And then > > > > > > > > > > (1 - v^2/c^2)*x = x' + v*t' > > > > > > > > > > x = (x' + v*t')/(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > which does NOT agree with what Windy Winn claimed. Now let's see > > > > > him try to come up with an equation for his really stupid v' :-))) > > > > > > > > First of all, I said the above equations were what Odd Bodkin calls the > > > > Winn transformation equations. > > > > > > Nope. He said the double Galilean transform that you persistently peddle > > > are the Winn equations. You're lying -- again. > > > > > > > I have never said they were the Lorentz equations. > > > > > > Then why are you trying to pretend that the false crap you posted would > > > have anything to do with reality? And then why would you falsely claim > > > the so-called "inverse" equations were actually an inverse of the crappy > > > baloney you invented whole cloth? > > > > > > Neither your double-GT nor your f... > > > > I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. > > No, they're not. I proved that the what you claimed were the inverse are > NOT the inverse. You lied -- again! > > > I know how distressing this must seem to worshipers of Dr. Albert Einstein, > > The only things that distress me are people who lie and people who display > arrogance and stupidity. You do all three. > > > but the equations hold together mathematically. > > Liar! I proved that they don't. Furthermore, they don't describe reality. > > > If the velocities are too complicated for people in science to understand, > > Velocity is a very simple thing. It is (v2 - v1)/(t2 - t1). It can also > be determined using the Doppler effect: > > f = f0*(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) > > for receding source/detector. Reverse the + and - for approaching s/d. > > Radar gun measurements refute your v' idea. > > > that is too bad, but it does not affect the equations themselves. > > What is too bad is that you can't understand reality. > > > Now here is the problem as I see it. We have had a hundred years of Harry > > Potter magic which was called science. > > Yep, you are a delusional crackpot and a crank. > > > That makes it difficult to explain to the people who see themselves as > > wizards that there is an actual mechanics by which the universe operates. > > You are describing yourself, but you're too delusional to know it. > > > So now we come to the principle of science which these wizards have > > neglected in their explanation of what was going on, and they are at a > > loss when it is put in the form of equations. > > You are delusional and wrong -- again. The equations are the LT. > > > So I think that this disagreement is going to continue for some time, > > perhaps even for centuries, > > You won't live that long. It will disappear when you die. > > > the same as the world saw happen with Ptolemaic astronomy. > > Now with regard as to which equations are the Winn transformation equations, > > I am Winn, so I get to say which equations are the Winn transformation. > > I say they are these. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t-vx/c^2 > > > > Inverse equations > > > > x = x' - v't' > > y = y' > > z = z' > > t = t'-v'x'/c^2 > > I proved mathematically that your inverse is dead wrong. Well, no you didn't. You proved that you do not understand velocities. > > > As scientists have stated for twenty years, these equations are obviously > > too complicated for scientists to understand because of the knowledge of > > velocities required. > > Nope. You're lying -- again. No, I am not lying. > > > [Regurgitated cow plop deleted to maintain sanitation restrictions] Calm down, Gary. We all know that you have to act like a scientist, but you get a little extreme.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <083f4283-418a-402c-8d34-61435f1ba36e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407977 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 9:43:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:40:19 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > First of all, I said the above equations were what Odd Bodkin calls the > > > > Winn transformation equations. > > > > > > Nope. He said the double Galilean transform that you persistently peddle > > > are the Winn equations. You're lying -- again. > > > > > > > I have never said they were the Lorentz equations. > > > > > > Then why are you trying to pretend that the false crap you posted would > > > have anything to do with reality? And then why would you falsely claim > > > the so-called "inverse" equations were actually an inverse of the crappy > > > baloney you invented whole cloth? > > > > > > Neither your double-GT nor your f... > > > > I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. > > No, they're not. I proved that the what you claimed were the inverse are > NOT the inverse. You lied -- again! Calm down, Gary. We already know you are a scientist. You do not have to practice continual hysteria to prove it. I can just stipulate. You are a scientist, and I am just a common person. But I am better at figuring velocities than you are. That is just a fact. > > > I know how distressing this must seem to worshipers of Dr. Albert Einstein, > > The only things that distress me are people who lie and people who display > arrogance and stupidity. You do all three. Well, if that is true, then I am sure that I will get my just due of punishment. I hope you get over your distress. > > but the equations hold together mathematically. > > Liar! I proved that they don't. Furthermore, they don't describe reality. Well, let's go through your proof again. I say it does not apply to the equations that I posted. > > If the velocities are too complicated for people in science to understand, > > Velocity is a very simple thing. It is (v2 - v1)/(t2 - t1). It can also > be determined using the Doppler effect: > > f = f0*(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) It is also dx/dt. Whatever happened to Dono? I haven't seen him for a while. > for receding source/detector. Reverse the + and - for approaching s/d. > > Radar gun measurements refute your v' idea. Well, I don't really think so, but we can discuss it if you want to. > > that is too bad, but it does not affect the equations themselves. > > What is too bad is that you can't understand reality. > > > Now here is the problem as I see it. We have had a hundred years of Harry > > Potter magic which was called science. > > Yep, you are a delusional crackpot and a crank. Well, no one is perfect. I am good at figuring velocities, though. > > That makes it difficult to explain to the people who see themselves as > > wizards that there is an actual mechanics by which the universe operates. > > You are describing yourself, but you're too delusional to know it. > Well, but what you are neglecting is that I am not a wizard like scientists are. The only ones who even know I study relativity are scientists and the other people who inhabit sci.physics.relativity. > > So now we come to the principle of science which these wizards have > > neglected in their explanation of ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 11:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d65b19b4-2460-4073-a45b-f7f20ef4b2ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407996 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 11:47:22 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 9:43:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:40:19 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > I am sorry, but the equations are mathematically consistent. > > > > No, they're not. I proved that the what you claimed were the inverse are > > NOT the inverse. You lied -- again! > > Calm down, Gary. We already know you are a scientist. You do not have to > practice continual hysteria to prove it. Calling you a liar has NOTHING to do with hysteria. > I can just stipulate. You are a scientist, and I am just a common person. > But I am better at figuring velocities than you are. That is just a fact. No, it's just another one of your delusional lies. > > > I know how distressing this must seem to worshipers of Dr. Albert > > > Einstein, > > > > The only things that distress me are people who lie and people who display > > arrogance and stupidity. You do all three. > > Well, if that is true, then I am sure that I will get my just due of > punishment. “I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.” -- Genghis Khan > I hope you get over your distress. I won't as long as there are arrogant liars like you in the world. > > > but the equations hold together mathematically. > > > > Liar! I proved that they don't. Furthermore, they don't describe reality. > > Well, let's go through your proof again. I say it does not apply to the > equations that I posted. And that just proves that you are mathematically incompetent. And believing otherwise proves you are extremely arrogant. > > > If the velocities are too complicated for people in science to understand, > > > > Velocity is a very simple thing. It is (v2 - v1)/(t2 - t1). It can also > > be determined using the Doppler effect: > > > > f = f0*(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) > > It is also dx/dt. I doubt if you even understand calculus. > Whatever happened to Dono? I haven't seen him for a while. Irrelevant obfuscation. > > for receding source/detector. Reverse the + and - for approaching s/d. > > > > Radar gun measurements refute your v' idea. > > Well, I don't really think so, but we can discuss it if you want to. There's nothing to discuss, but YOU can TRY to discuss it with the radar cop that catches you speeding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 24 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 26 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web