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 26 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7fap6$1111$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408353 |
On 2/8/2017 12:29 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > Well, you seem a lot like Odd Bodkin to me. You talk a great fight, but never show up with > any kind of proof of what you say. So after a while, I just sort of discount what you say. > In the meantime, I can experiment directly with clocks that have different rates and determine > that a slower clock results in a faster velocity. So why do you think Einstein's slower > clock would be different. I have to conclude that it wouldn't. It's a peculiar choice in life, Robert, that you have decided to believe what you believe based on what people are willing to prove to you on a science newsgroup at your behest. What this means is that if people aren't willing to step up at your request to prove anything to you, then you will simply choose on your own what to believe. I think you are free to make spectacularly idiotic life choices like this, Robert. It's what you've done for a very long time, so it comes naturally. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 07:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ca36a10-446a-4cc0-a4cd-274d144ba137@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408382 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:42:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/8/2017 12:29 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, you seem a lot like Odd Bodkin to me. You talk a great fight, but never show up with > > any kind of proof of what you say. So after a while, I just sort of discount what you say. > > In the meantime, I can experiment directly with clocks that have different rates and determine > > that a slower clock results in a faster velocity. So why do you think Einstein's slower > > clock would be different. I have to conclude that it wouldn't. > > It's a peculiar choice in life, Robert, that you have decided to believe > what you believe based on what people are willing to prove to you on a > science newsgroup at your behest. > > What this means is that if people aren't willing to step up at your > request to prove anything to you, then you will simply choose on your > own what to believe. > > I think you are free to make spectacularly idiotic life choices like > this, Robert. It's what you've done for a very long time, so it comes > naturally. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Yes, you are correct. It does come naturally. Just because there is a large group of people with college degrees all saying the same thing, I do not really take that as proof of anything other than that they went to college. When I can say, Look, if you have two clocks running at different rates, the time of the slower clock will indicate a faster velocity than the time of the faster clock, and they tell me, That is idiotic, then I tend to discount most of what they say because they have proven to me that they cannot follow simple algebra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 04:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2535d370-44e1-488a-83c3-96aeabbc78c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408353 |
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:29:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:41:53 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:06:03 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > Wrong prediction, you say? How would you be able to tell it is a wrong > > > prediction? > > > > EXPRIMENT! Are you REALLY this clueless? > > > > > You think that two clocks with different rates have times that result in > > > the same velocity. > > > > Your Walgreen's clock does. Anyway, no one's talking about clock's in > > two different moving frames. > > > > > I can at least keep track of rates. In any event, there is almost no > > > difference between t'=t-vx/c^2 and t'= (t-vx/c^2)gamma until you get > > > something going pretty fast. > > > > And we have experiments where v approaches c very closely. Your bullshit > > is refuted by experiment. Get over yourself. > > > > “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are > > proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides > > to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami > > > > “People love answers, but only as long as they are the ones who came up > > with them.” ― Criss Jami > > > > “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how > > smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” > > -- Richard P. Feynman > > Well, you seem a lot like Odd Bodkin to me. You talk a great fight, but > never show up with any kind of proof of what you say. This is just another one of your lies. You have been given MANY links to the evidence. You prove Criss Jami right. > So after a while, I just sort of discount what you say. You discount ALL evidence except what you want to. Jami is proven right again. > In the meantime, I can experiment directly with clocks that have different > rates and determine that a slower clock results in a faster velocity. Really? How are you going to do that with a welding torch? Blow up a clock with gas? > So why do you think Einstein's slower clock would be different. I have > to conclude that it wouldn't. What you conclude is irrelevant because you are dishonest. Dishonest with people, dishonest with math, and dishonest with nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 05:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe28a799-881f-47fb-8310-3d40fac973b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408568 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:54:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:29:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:41:53 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:06:03 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > Wrong prediction, you say? How would you be able to tell it is a wrong > > > > prediction? > > > > > > EXPRIMENT! Are you REALLY this clueless? > > > > > > > You think that two clocks with different rates have times that result in > > > > the same velocity. > > > > > > Your Walgreen's clock does. Anyway, no one's talking about clock's in > > > two different moving frames. > > > > > > > I can at least keep track of rates. In any event, there is almost no > > > > difference between t'=t-vx/c^2 and t'= (t-vx/c^2)gamma until you get > > > > something going pretty fast. > > > > > > And we have experiments where v approaches c very closely. Your bullshit > > > is refuted by experiment. Get over yourself. > > > > > > “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are > > > proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides > > > to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami > > > > > > “People love answers, but only as long as they are the ones who came up > > > with them.” ― Criss Jami > > > > > > “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how > > > smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” > > > -- Richard P. Feynman > > > > Well, you seem a lot like Odd Bodkin to me. You talk a great fight, but > > never show up with any kind of proof of what you say. > > This is just another one of your lies. You have been given MANY links to > the evidence. You prove Criss Jami right. > > > So after a while, I just sort of discount what you say. > > You discount ALL evidence except what you want to. Jami is proven right again. > > > In the meantime, I can experiment directly with clocks that have different > > rates and determine that a slower clock results in a faster velocity. > > Really? How are you going to do that with a welding torch? Blow up a > clock with gas? > > > So why do you think Einstein's slower clock would be different. I have > > to conclude that it wouldn't. > > What you conclude is irrelevant because you are dishonest. Dishonest with > people, dishonest with math, and dishonest with nature. Well, then you should be able to show exactly where I am dishonest. Instead, all you do is repeat the accusation over and over again. So I say to you, Show exactly what I said that was dishonest. The only result I get from that is that you or Odd Bodkin will post a link to some irrelevant discussion about the Lorentz equations. My conclusion is that you have no idea what the Lorentz equations mean and cannot explain them, so you just post these links and claim that I have been proven wrong. That is not going to work with me. You either show the proof of what you are saying, or I am going to say you have no proof. Do not post a link to some irrelevant discussion about the Lorentz equations. Post the Lorentz equations and explain how they prove me wrong. Otherwise, you are just another scientist blowing smoke.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 05:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4c24657-88f1-4436-abea-9e7a737f7e43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408571 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:09:07 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:54:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:29:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > Well, you seem a lot like Odd Bodkin to me. You talk a great fight, but > > > never show up with any kind of proof of what you say. > > > > This is just another one of your lies. You have been given MANY links to > > the evidence. You prove Criss Jami right. > > > > > So after a while, I just sort of discount what you say. > > > > You discount ALL evidence except what you want to. Jami is proven right > > again. > > > > > In the meantime, I can experiment directly with clocks that have > > > different rates and determine that a slower clock results in a faster > > > velocity. > > > > Really? How are you going to do that with a welding torch? Blow up a > > clock with gas? > > > > > So why do you think Einstein's slower clock would be different. I have > > > to conclude that it wouldn't. > > > > What you conclude is irrelevant because you are dishonest. Dishonest with > > people, dishonest with math, and dishonest with nature. > > Well, then you should be able to show exactly where I am dishonest. > Instead, all you do is repeat the accusation over and over again. You are lying again. > So I say to you, Show exactly what I said that was dishonest. You are too stupid to understand truth. > The only result I get from that is that you or Odd Bodkin will post a link > to some irrelevant discussion about the Lorentz equations. In your dishonest opinion, it's "irrelevant." > My conclusion is that you have no idea what the Lorentz equations mean > and cannot explain them, And that is an example of your dishonesty. > so you just post these links and claim that I have been proven wrong. Another lie. I have posted detailed derivations of the LT as well as the GT. And I have posted the CORRECT inverse of your WT and shown that yours is completely false. > That is not going to work with me. I can see that the truth doesn't work with you. > You either show the proof of what you are saying, or I am going to say > you have no proof. You proved you're dishonest all by yourself. > Do not post a link to some irrelevant discussion about the Lorentz > equations. Post the Lorentz equations and explain how they prove me wrong. > Otherwise, you are just another scientist blowing smoke. x' = gamma*(x - v*t) t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2) x1 = 0, x2 = L, t1 = 0, t2 = 0. x1' = gamma*(x1 - v*t1) = gamma*(0 - 0) = 0 t1' = 0 t2' = gamma*(0 - v*L/c^2) = -gamma*v*L/c^2 Thus clocks at 0 and L read the same in S, but do not read the same in S'. Events that are simultaneous in one frame are NOT simultaneous in a frame moving at v wrt the "stationary" frame. THIS is the reason for time dilation, not any belief that Walgreen's clocks are used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 07:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65c344d6-91d0-4f60-bc01-e8ce47d88bb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408577 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:55:34 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:09:07 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > Do not post a link to some irrelevant discussion about the Lorentz > > equations. Post the Lorentz equations and explain how they prove me wrong. > > Otherwise, you are just another scientist blowing smoke. > > x' = gamma*(x - v*t) > t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2) > > x1 = 0, x2 = L, t1 = 0, t2 = 0. > > x1' = gamma*(x1 - v*t1) = gamma*(0 - 0) = 0 > t1' = 0 > t2' = gamma*(0 - v*L/c^2) = -gamma*v*L/c^2 > > Thus clocks at 0 and L read the same in S, but do not read the same in S'. > Events that are simultaneous in one frame are NOT simultaneous in a frame > moving at v wrt the "stationary" frame. > > THIS is the reason for time dilation, not any belief that Walgreen's clocks > are used. Let's look at the WT with the same values for x and t as above: x' = x - v*t t' = t - v*x/c^2 t1' = 0 t2' = 0 - v*L/c^2 = -v*L/c^2 So the WT exhibits non-simultaneity, too. Thus, the WT exhibits BOTH time dilation and length contraction (note that TD and LC are the opposite sides of the coin of non-simultaneity). In the S' frame, length is measured at the beginning and end points at the same time in S', but t1' and t2' are NOT at the same time in S', even though they are in S. So what is t when t' = 0 and x = L? t = t' + v*L/c^2 = v*L/c^2 x' = L - v*(v*L/c^2) = L*(1 - v^2/c^2) Voila! Length contraction. Of course, the WT gives the WRONG value for it. “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c6acbfc8-d698-4ab4-a53f-5d7d2f7afcb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408595 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:13:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:55:34 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:09:07 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > Do not post a link to some irrelevant discussion about the Lorentz > > > equations. Post the Lorentz equations and explain how they prove me wrong. > > > Otherwise, you are just another scientist blowing smoke. > > > > x' = gamma*(x - v*t) > > t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2) > > > > x1 = 0, x2 = L, t1 = 0, t2 = 0. > > > > x1' = gamma*(x1 - v*t1) = gamma*(0 - 0) = 0 > > t1' = 0 > > t2' = gamma*(0 - v*L/c^2) = -gamma*v*L/c^2 > > > > Thus clocks at 0 and L read the same in S, but do not read the same in S'. > > Events that are simultaneous in one frame are NOT simultaneous in a frame > > moving at v wrt the "stationary" frame. > > > > THIS is the reason for time dilation, not any belief that Walgreen's clocks > > are used. > > Let's look at the WT with the same values for x and t as above: > > x' = x - v*t > t' = t - v*x/c^2 > > t1' = 0 > t2' = 0 - v*L/c^2 = -v*L/c^2 > > So the WT exhibits non-simultaneity, too. Thus, the WT exhibits BOTH > time dilation and length contraction (note that TD and LC are the opposite > sides of the coin of non-simultaneity). > > In the S' frame, length is measured at the beginning and end points at the > same time in S', but t1' and t2' are NOT at the same time in S', even > though they are in S. > > So what is t when t' = 0 and x = L? > > t = t' + v*L/c^2 = v*L/c^2 > > x' = L - v*(v*L/c^2) = L*(1 - v^2/c^2) > > Voila! Length contraction. Of course, the WT gives the WRONG value for it. > > “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell > yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme Yes, thank you. I knew there was a valid reason why I quit using what Odd Bodkin calls the Winn transformation a long time ago and started using two sets of Galilean transformation equations. You also point to an error in the way I was writing the relationship between t and n' in two sets of Galilean transformation equations. The error is easily corrected by avoiding Einsteins' idea of x=ct, x'=ct'. If we use an entirely different variable a for the distance light travels in time t and a' for the distance light travels in time t', then I believe the problem is fixed. I appreciate your help with this difficulty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 08:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <51168750-6189-48fd-b692-eb7393958c1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408577 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:55:34 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:09:07 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:54:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:29:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, you seem a lot like Odd Bodkin to me. You talk a great fight, but
> > > > never show up with any kind of proof of what you say.
> > >
> > > This is just another one of your lies. You have been given MANY links to
> > > the evidence. You prove Criss Jami right.
> > >
> > > > So after a while, I just sort of discount what you say.
> > >
> > > You discount ALL evidence except what you want to. Jami is proven right
> > > again.
> > >
> > > > In the meantime, I can experiment directly with clocks that have
> > > > different rates and determine that a slower clock results in a faster
> > > > velocity.
> > >
> > > Really? How are you going to do that with a welding torch? Blow up a
> > > clock with gas?
> > >
> > > > So why do you think Einstein's slower clock would be different. I have
> > > > to conclude that it wouldn't.
> > >
> > > What you conclude is irrelevant because you are dishonest. Dishonest with
> > > people, dishonest with math, and dishonest with nature.
> >
> > Well, then you should be able to show exactly where I am dishonest.
> > Instead, all you do is repeat the accusation over and over again.
>
> You are lying again.
>
> > So I say to you, Show exactly what I said that was dishonest.
>
> You are too stupid to understand truth.
>
> > The only result I get from that is that you or Odd Bodkin will post a link
> > to some irrelevant discussion about the Lorentz equations.
>
> In your dishonest opinion, it's "irrelevant."
>
> > My conclusion is that you have no idea what the Lorentz equations mean
> > and cannot explain them,
>
> And that is an example of your dishonesty.
>
> > so you just post these links and claim that I have been proven wrong.
>
> Another lie. I have posted detailed derivations of the LT as well as the GT.
> And I have posted the CORRECT inverse of your WT and shown that yours is
> completely false.
>
> > That is not going to work with me.
>
> I can see that the truth doesn't work with you.
>
> > You either show the proof of what you are saying, or I am going to say
> > you have no proof.
>
> You proved you're dishonest all by yourself.
>
> > Do not post a link to some irrelevant discussion about the Lorentz
> > equations. Post the Lorentz equations and explain how they prove me wrong.
> > Otherwise, you are just another scientist blowing smoke.
>
> x' = gamma*(x - v*t)
> t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2)
>
> x1 = 0, x2 = L, t1 = 0, t2 = 0.
>
> x1' = gamma*(x1 - v*t1) = gamma*(0 - 0) = 0
> t1' = 0
> t2' = gamma*(0 - v*L/c^2) = -gamma*v*L/c^2
>
> Thus clocks at 0 and L read the same in S, but do not read the same in S'.
> Events that are simultaneous in one frame are NOT simultaneous in a frame
> moving at v wrt the "stationary" frame.
>
> THIS is the reason for time dilation, not any belief that Walgreen's clocks
> are used.
Thank you. Now I will give my assessment of the situation. It takes two sets of Galilean transformation equations to show what is actually going on.
But I am just going to use the Lorentz equations to show the mistake. What is happening is that scientists are using x to mean two different things. On the one hand they are saying that x means ct, the distance light travels in time t. On the other hand they are saying that x means L. The two variables are not really interchangeable.
So now we go to what Odd Bodkin calls the Winn transformation, which is the Lorentz equations without the length contraction.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'= t-vx/c^2
So we see the same mistake in these equations as I have been writing them. To prevent this improper substitution, I need to start writing the equations as
x'=x-vt
t'=x-vct/c^2
but this would prove too confusing to scientists because it does not show the negative component
t'= x-v(-c)t/c^2
So I will have to invent another variable for the distance light travels in time t. Suppose that we say that the distance light travels in time t is a, and the distance light travels in time n' in another set of Galilean transformation equations is a'. Then the corrected Winn transformation equations become
a=ct or -ct
a'= ct' or-ct'
x'=x-vt
t'= t-va/c^2
x = x' - v't'
t = t' - v'a'/c^2
We see then that the best measurement of t in the Galilean transformation equations is the distance between the origins of S and S'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 08:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7hulo$1942$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408571 |
On 2/9/2017 7:09 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > You either show the proof of what you are saying, or I am going to say you have no proof. Robert, this is called being passive-aggressive. I'm sure you've heard the term before, probably in conversations about you and your personality. What you are saying is that you are going to believe what you want to believe, until someone comes to you and takes the trouble to convince you otherwise. This assumes, of course, that people care what you believe, which is unlikely. It is a baiting method that has the underlying motive of getting people to pay attention to you, rather than just leaving you alone which occasionally you do not like. If people invest time and effort in you, no matter how futile, then this is gratifying to you and great sport. It is even greater sport to you the more futile you make it. I think you can understand why this kind of interpersonal gamesmanship for your own gratification is only done in small doses by normal people. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 09:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8e3988ec-905c-42cb-9de3-e65d04d34bd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408580 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:34:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/9/2017 7:09 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > You either show the proof of what you are saying, or I am going to say you have no proof. > > Robert, this is called being passive-aggressive. I'm sure you've heard > the term before, probably in conversations about you and your personality. > > What you are saying is that you are going to believe what you want to > believe, until someone comes to you and takes the trouble to convince > you otherwise. This assumes, of course, that people care what you > believe, which is unlikely. > > It is a baiting method that has the underlying motive of getting people > to pay attention to you, rather than just leaving you alone which > occasionally you do not like. If people invest time and effort in you, > no matter how futile, then this is gratifying to you and great sport. It > is even greater sport to you the more futile you make it. > > I think you can understand why this kind of interpersonal gamesmanship > for your own gratification is only done in small doses by normal people. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, I have said this before, Odd Bodkin, and I will say it again. You are not talking about relativity, you are talking about psychology, which does not interest me at all. If you want to talk about relativity, you have to talk about equations the way Gary Harnagel does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7qj9d$1ace$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408627 |
On 2/9/2017 11:02 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:34:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/9/2017 7:09 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> You either show the proof of what you are saying, or I am going to say you have no proof. >> >> Robert, this is called being passive-aggressive. I'm sure you've heard >> the term before, probably in conversations about you and your personality. >> >> What you are saying is that you are going to believe what you want to >> believe, until someone comes to you and takes the trouble to convince >> you otherwise. This assumes, of course, that people care what you >> believe, which is unlikely. >> >> It is a baiting method that has the underlying motive of getting people >> to pay attention to you, rather than just leaving you alone which >> occasionally you do not like. If people invest time and effort in you, >> no matter how futile, then this is gratifying to you and great sport. It >> is even greater sport to you the more futile you make it. >> >> I think you can understand why this kind of interpersonal gamesmanship >> for your own gratification is only done in small doses by normal people. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, I have said this before, Odd Bodkin, and I will say it again. You are > not talking about relativity, you are talking about psychology, which does not > interest me at all. If you want to talk about relativity, you have to talk about > equations the way Gary Harnagel does. > On the contrary, Robert. To talk about relativity, you have to talk about experimental results, not equations. You don't know about the experimental results, and so all the talk about equations is a waste of time. The reason you don't look at experimental results is because of psychology. I think I'm pointing out that in general talking with you about relativity is a waste of time. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b3b5a7ba-8f4e-4557-9670-b391c0acf807@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408960 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:15:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 11:02 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:34:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/9/2017 7:09 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> You either show the proof of what you are saying, or I am going to say you have no proof.
> >>
> >> Robert, this is called being passive-aggressive. I'm sure you've heard
> >> the term before, probably in conversations about you and your personality.
> >>
> >> What you are saying is that you are going to believe what you want to
> >> believe, until someone comes to you and takes the trouble to convince
> >> you otherwise. This assumes, of course, that people care what you
> >> believe, which is unlikely.
> >>
> >> It is a baiting method that has the underlying motive of getting people
> >> to pay attention to you, rather than just leaving you alone which
> >> occasionally you do not like. If people invest time and effort in you,
> >> no matter how futile, then this is gratifying to you and great sport. It
> >> is even greater sport to you the more futile you make it.
> >>
> >> I think you can understand why this kind of interpersonal gamesmanship
> >> for your own gratification is only done in small doses by normal people.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Well, I have said this before, Odd Bodkin, and I will say it again. You are
> > not talking about relativity, you are talking about psychology, which does not
> > interest me at all. If you want to talk about relativity, you have to talk about
> > equations the way Gary Harnagel does.
> >
>
> On the contrary, Robert. To talk about relativity, you have to talk
> about experimental results, not equations. You don't know about the
> experimental results, and so all the talk about equations is a waste of
> time. The reason you don't look at experimental results is because of
> psychology. I think I'm pointing out that in general talking with you
> about relativity is a waste of time.
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
No, it is not a waste of time. How else would you have learned that two sets of Galilean transformation equations can explain constant speed of light?
The experimental results I have always talked about are the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. So here are two sets of Galilean transformation equations again, and I will explain how they relate to that experiment.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
t is the time of a clock in S, a frame of reference at rest. I am sorry about all the coordinates, but we will just have to do the best we can. Einstein tells us there is a clock in S' that is slower than the clock in S that shows t. Once again, notice the two little horizontal lines between t' and t. They are called an equal sign. We cannot use t' as the time of the slower clock if we are going to use the Galilean transformation equations. So we say the same thing with another set of Galilean transformation equations using the time of the slower clock.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the slower clock in S'. The equations are inverse to the first set of equations because they show S moving relative to S' with a velocity of v'. The only reference for time being used in this second set of equations is n', the clock Einstein said was slower.
Now we come to the difficult part. There is no length contraction in the Galilean transformation equations. I will briefly go through all the distances so that you can verify these concepts for yourself.
x in the first set of equations equals x in the second set of equations.
y in the first set of equations equals y in the second set of equations.
z in the first set of equations equals z in the second set of equations.
x' in the first set of equations equals x' in the second set of equations.
y' in the first set of equations equals y' in the second set of equations.
z' in the first set of equations equals z' in the second set of equations.
vt in the first set of equations equals -v'n' in the second set of equations.
I know how complicated this must seem to someone who believes in the length contraction. If you have any more questions about these coordinates, feel free to ask any time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7fajp$1111$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408315 |
On 2/7/2017 7:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > Wrong prediction, you say? How would you be able to tell it is a wrong prediction? You think > that two clocks with different rates have times that result in the same velocity. I can at least > keep track of rates. In any event, there is almost no difference between t'=t-vx/c^2 and > t'= (t-vx/c^2)gamma until you get something going pretty fast. Anyway, whatever difference > there is, I can just do what Hafele and Keating did, say that the difference exists because of > gravitation or maybe something else they did not even consider. See how scientific I can be? Robert, you obviously have no understanding of the quantitative nature of physics. Or you do, but you think that it should be dismissed. Or you don't care whether it should be or not, but you dismiss it anyway. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 09:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7248eb9-51fd-4a47-aee7-57484e6dc535@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408381 |
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/7/2017 7:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > Wrong prediction, you say? How would you be able to tell it is a wrong prediction? You think > > that two clocks with different rates have times that result in the same velocity. I can at least > > keep track of rates. In any event, there is almost no difference between t'=t-vx/c^2 and > > t'= (t-vx/c^2)gamma until you get something going pretty fast. Anyway, whatever difference > > there is, I can just do what Hafele and Keating did, say that the difference exists because of > > gravitation or maybe something else they did not even consider. See how scientific I can be? > > Robert, you obviously have no understanding of the quantitative nature > of physics. Or you do, but you think that it should be dismissed. Or you > don't care whether it should be or not, but you dismiss it anyway. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, I do have an understanding of the quantitative nature of physics. An ordinary clock will count a certain number of seconds, a slower clock will count a different number of seconds. So if you use the slower clock to calculate velocity, you get a different speed. I know how difficult this must seem to a scientist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 13:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7aj4f$u2d$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407996 |
On 2/5/2017 12:47 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > ell, 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. > I'm not a wizard, either, Robert. I'm a tradesman like you are. The difference is, I research facts on my own rather than hope that people will bring them to sci.physics.relativity. I do not indulge the lazy. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 17:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o75oad$1u0s$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407855 |
On 2/4/2017 12:43 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. The existence of length contraction is shown from measurements, not from equations. What part of "the truth in science comes from measurements" eludes you? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 16:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e8bcd26-9d6e-486f-9f34-4138e1cedea8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407897 |
W dniu niedziela, 5 lutego 2017 00:32:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > The existence of length contraction is shown from measurements, Surely! Twins imagined by relativistic morons measured it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 21:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <28eed946-c488-4e4a-ba70-364f17f653e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407897 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:32:33 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/4/2017 12:43 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. > > The existence of length contraction is shown from measurements, not from > equations. What part of "the truth in science comes from measurements" > eludes you? > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The part that eludes me is the part where you show how the measurements were made. You are not going to attempt to do that because there is nothing for you to show. All you have is an empty statement that this measurement was made. I am convinced that all we are ever going to see from you is this empty statement repeated over and over again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 09:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o77ha7$8ci$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407926 |
On 2/4/2017 11:45 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:32:33 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/4/2017 12:43 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> OK, here are the equations. Go ahead and show the length contraction. >> >> The existence of length contraction is shown from measurements, not from >> equations. What part of "the truth in science comes from measurements" >> eludes you? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > The part that eludes me is the part where you show how the measurements were made. That's right. I expect you to do something on your own to learn real facts, rather than you sitting there like a toddler in a high chair, waiting for someone to put the spoon with pablum in your mouth. I told you where the measurements were done. You said you'd never heard of it, nor did not even know what the acronym means. This doesn't mean anything other than an opportunity for you to try looking it up. See, you're on the internet, and there are all sorts of useful tools called search engines on the internet. Most people use the internet to find information. You use the internet to ask people to find the information for you. I do not indulge the lazy. > You are not going to attempt to do that because there is nothing for you to show. > All you have is an empty statement that this measurement was made. I am convinced > that all we are ever going to see from you is this empty statement repeated over > and over again. > Who is this "we" you are referring to? Other people know what RHIC is, or if they don't they know how to look it up. Only YOU don't know how to do this, and so yes, all YOU are going to get from me is the bare statement of documented fact. You know what they say about leading an ass to water..... -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 17:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o75o8a$1u0s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407800 |
On 2/3/2017 10:07 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/2/2017 12:16 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> These equations do not have a length contraction, just two different rates of time. >> >> And what are you going to do with the fact that length contraction has >> been experimentally measured? Insist that the equations tell you that >> this cannot happen? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I am not going to do anything. No one has yet proved to me that there is a length contraction. > I don't think anyone is going to come knocking on your door to prove anything. Whether you're aware of it or not does not change the fact. Whether anyone has demonstrated the fact to you does not change the fact. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 26 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web