Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427580 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-07 18:12 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-10-17 15:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 618 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 18:12 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:32 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-07 10:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 08:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 09:14 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 17:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 10:33 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 22:54 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:19 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 07:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-10 08:30 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:34 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 23:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 09:06 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 18:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:39 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 19:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 16:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 08:52 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:58 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 16:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 09:49 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-11 21:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 09:41 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-12 18:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 17:39 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 10:23 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-15 10:56 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 20:54 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 20:15 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-16 07:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:02 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 20:21 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 11:50 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-17 07:53 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 17:08 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 07:51 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 07:53 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-18 06:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 20:12 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 15:15 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Elma Sneijders <elsn@uejdui.fe> - 2017-08-18 20:27 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-18 23:46 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 11:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 10:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 19:19 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 12:43 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 21:06 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 14:39 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 22:47 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 00:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 12:50 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 06:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-20 06:49 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 17:39 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 23:28 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:43 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 05:14 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 12:33 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 06:46 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 13:51 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-19 09:21 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 02:47 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 08:57 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 01:04 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 01:06 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 19:55 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 19:53 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 03:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:43 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-22 07:26 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 16:42 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-22 08:45 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 23:42 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-23 08:11 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-23 11:13 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:34 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 21:58 -0400
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:16 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-23 07:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-24 08:34 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:41 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-25 09:26 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 00:54 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-26 09:09 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:42 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-27 09:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:52 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 08:24 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:37 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:24 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 16:35 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 08:49 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-04 22:52 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 14:55 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 20:15 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:55 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 09:01 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:58 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 01:09 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 13:01 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 21:22 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 04:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:52 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 16:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:30 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:30 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 16:50 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 09:29 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-09 17:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-24 08:10 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:37 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:37 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-12 10:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:08 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-12 13:20 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:35 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-12 14:52 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 09:43 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:01 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-10 07:39 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 09:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-11 06:23 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:43 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-11 08:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-12 07:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-12 08:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-12 15:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-12 16:25 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 06:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 10:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 16:15 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 19:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-14 05:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 06:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:15 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-14 08:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 08:54 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-14 11:59 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 14:08 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:27 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 11:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 09:57 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 10:10 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 12:54 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-16 07:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-16 12:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-18 07:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-18 09:49 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-19 08:11 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 10:52 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-20 07:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 08:59 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-21 07:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-21 11:05 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 19:54 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 09:04 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-11 06:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 09:53 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-12 14:24 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 09:50 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-12 23:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 08:39 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-15 12:03 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 22:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 19:50 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-16 07:39 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-17 08:05 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-16 16:37 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 08:07 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-18 10:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-19 09:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-18 22:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 09:16 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 21:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 20:15 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-21 12:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-22 07:46 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-21 17:36 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 06:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-23 13:24 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-24 12:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 13:54 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-26 07:26 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 09:43 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-26 15:46 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 19:07 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-27 07:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-27 08:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-28 09:05 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:48 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:09 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 10:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:29 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 07:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 10:55 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 18:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:11 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:10 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-28 10:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:09 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:07 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 08:28 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:30 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-28 17:42 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 11:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:29 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-29 21:18 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 08:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:11 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 07:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-29 16:38 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 09:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-30 11:09 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 19:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-30 12:05 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 21:15 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-30 14:13 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 13:26 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 08:54 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-31 11:03 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 05:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-31 16:05 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 11:39 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:11 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-03 09:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 22:20 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 19:56 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-04 12:11 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 08:33 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:58 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:56 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 07:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:12 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:36 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 07:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 01:23 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-06 16:46 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 13:06 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-07 07:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:53 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 06:25 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:36 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 07:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-08 16:20 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 11:41 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:25 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 16:49 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 09:26 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-08 22:19 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-09 02:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 08:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:41 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 06:45 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 15:46 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 07:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 17:00 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 09:30 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 18:35 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 14:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:55 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 20:53 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 08:58 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-13 08:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:07 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 09:13 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-15 12:00 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 08:33 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-16 08:13 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-16 18:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-17 07:47 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 20:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-17 18:58 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-17 22:37 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 07:33 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-18 15:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-18 15:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-18 23:31 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 11:35 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-18 20:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 19:52 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 03:09 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-19 12:17 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-19 08:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-19 12:12 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 08:44 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-21 23:00 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 12:53 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 19:56 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-22 12:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 08:09 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-22 22:56 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 09:46 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 12:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 08:21 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 08:48 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-19 16:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 13:49 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 03:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 10:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:16 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 10:42 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 17:04 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 20:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-17 19:03 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-17 05:07 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-17 12:14 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 08:23 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 22:20 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-19 15:19 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 08:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-13 08:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-13 16:58 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-13 13:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 12:37 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 02:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 12:54 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-14 06:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 20:25 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 08:48 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-15 06:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-15 20:36 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 14:06 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-15 08:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-16 08:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-16 07:33 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-17 07:39 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 20:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-16 20:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 20:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-17 11:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 08:46 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:54 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 09:31 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 07:57 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:57 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 10:10 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-13 08:20 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 12:38 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-14 06:41 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 09:12 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-14 12:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 15:28 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-15 07:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 14:48 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-16 07:23 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 17:06 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-17 09:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 08:24 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 07:57 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-19 07:58 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:16 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 20:00 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 12:24 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 13:00 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:05 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 08:11 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:25 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 09:35 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 20:26 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-22 08:42 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 11:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 08:14 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 20:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:21 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 16:46 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 12:34 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:14 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 23:18 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:39 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 02:51 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:52 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 12:48 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:23 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 09:41 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 21:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 23:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 14:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 17:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 07:14 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 17:38 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 11:54 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 12:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 20:05 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:27 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 02:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 12:34 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 05:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 19:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 23:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 13:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 07:42 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 09:05 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 09:59 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 11:53 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 19:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:19 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-24 17:34 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:54 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-25 04:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 02:51 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 16:02 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-25 06:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:25 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 16:39 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 16:50 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 12:34 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 05:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:28 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 02:51 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 02:34 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 20:43 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 07:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-16 08:27 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-16 07:36 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 09:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-17 08:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-17 17:30 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-17 22:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-19 08:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 13:31 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-20 06:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 10:42 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-16 04:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 14:06 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-17 07:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 08:58 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-18 05:31 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 07:19 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-18 07:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 07:20 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 08:25 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-19 07:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-19 08:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:16 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-20 14:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 22:24 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-21 08:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 15:28 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-21 11:08 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:14 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 22:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 20:57 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 20:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-15 08:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-16 08:39 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 14:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 08:50 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-31 11:00 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:14 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-03 09:10 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 22:25 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 22:55 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-04 06:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 16:44 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 08:37 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:49 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:01 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 07:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:37 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 19:24 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:59 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:50 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 10:56 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:26 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 07:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 09:18 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 11:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 12:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:57 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 07:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-29 08:04 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 06:15 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-30 07:17 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 14:10 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-30 18:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 06:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-31 08:59 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 11:48 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-31 12:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-04 06:55 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 09:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-04 09:41 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 10:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:58 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 08:49 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 08:21 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 12:20 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-07 07:37 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 09:25 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 09:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 05:52 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-08 09:24 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 08:34 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 10:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 21:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-10 09:41 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 07:38 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-11 11:23 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-13 09:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-09-13 10:33 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-11 01:57 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:47 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 08:12 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 20:52 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:18 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-17 14:45 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 09:18 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-17 17:29 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-19 07:24 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-18 13:47 +0200
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:52 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 10:45 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-24 12:46 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 13:27 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 09:16 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 02:13 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 23:24 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 10:50 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 19:23 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:15 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 06:49 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-10 09:03 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 09:31 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 23:32 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 18:41 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:00 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 10:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:22 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 10:25 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 19:40 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 20:53 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 05:42 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 05:52 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-15 12:14 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 21:06 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 11:47 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-15 18:56 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 20:22 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Prudence Oppenheimer <phow@innfldo.sp> - 2017-08-16 15:45 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 07:19 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-15 12:26 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 20:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 22:30 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 19:42 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 07:31 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 08:12 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-17 08:42 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 17:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 08:59 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 16:13 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 14:17 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 22:02 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-19 09:45 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 16:52 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 09:27 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:24 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-10 08:40 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 23:50 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 09:45 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:04 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 10:20 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 01:22 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 10:26 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 01:52 +0000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-18 04:59 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-08 12:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:21 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-10 07:49 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 10:02 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-11 06:05 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:27 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-11 06:57 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:12 -0500
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 13:08 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 14:16 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 14:44 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-11 22:50 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-23 07:47 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 09:47 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 10:44 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 19:19 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-11 06:36 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 10:41 +1000
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:34 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 15:35 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 08:43 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-12 15:32 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-12 18:41 -0700
What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-18 05:42 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 17:14 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 14:01 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 12:23 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 12:24 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 13:27 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 14:51 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2017-10-16 15:03 -0700
Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-10-17 15:54 -0700
Page 9 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 31 Next page →
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 19:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <on14pj$1drs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428721 |
On 15/08/17 04:54, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:57:56 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > If they use the same equation, they get the same answer. For example A and B are in relative motion: > 1. A claims to be in the unprimed frame and integrating the path of B to get the elapsed time for B. > 2. B claims to be in the unprimed frame and integrating the path of A to get the elapsed time of A. > 3. I think that they will get the same answer and thus the bogus concept of reciprocity.. > >> >> For example, suppose one clock is at rest in terms of the inertial coordinates (x,t) from the origin (0,0) to (0,1), where x has units of light-years and t has units of years. And suppose the other clock moves uniformly from (0,0) to (0.25,0.5) and then uniformly from (0.25,0.5) to (0,1). The elapsed time on the first clock is just sqrt(1^2 - 0^2) = 1 year. The elapsed time for the other clock is the sum of sqrt(0.5^2 - 0.25^2) and sqrt(0.5^2 - (-0.25)^2), which equals an elapsed time of 0.866 years. Idiot! The length of the path is not time. The length of the time coordinate is....and it is the same no matter which path is taken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 09:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <omioou$7cd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428048 |
On 11/08/17 00:39, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:54:17 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com > >> >> However, the description of the object in terms of S is now >> different, essentially because the inertial mass of each part of >> the object is increased, corresponding to a reduction in the >> natural frequencies of all physical processes, from which it >> follows that S and S’ are related by a Lorentz transformation, with >> all the consequences that entails (reciprocal length contraction >> and time dilation, etc). > > There is no reciprocity between S and S’. For example: According to > SR math the S clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the S’ > clock between meetings. This means that the S’ clock was definitely > running slower (accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate) than the S > clock during relative motion......thus no reciprocity. > > IRT resolves the TP nicely. The IRT math says that: 1. The S clock > accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the S’ clock during > relative motion. 2. The S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower > rate than the S clock during relative motion. That can only happen if an absolute frame exists. > 3. At no time the S’ clock accumulates clock seconds at faster rate > than the S clock during relative motion.....thus no reciprocity. 4. A > paper on IRT is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf useless aether theory stuff.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2c4df82-ccf3-44c2-96be-6bcae8713706@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428150 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:04:10 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > On 11/08/17 00:39, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:54:17 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com > > > >> > >> However, the description of the object in terms of S is now > >> different, essentially because the inertial mass of each part of > >> the object is increased, corresponding to a reduction in the > >> natural frequencies of all physical processes, from which it > >> follows that S and S’ are related by a Lorentz transformation, with > >> all the consequences that entails (reciprocal length contraction > >> and time dilation, etc). > > > > There is no reciprocity between S and S’. For example: According to > > SR math the S clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the S’ > > clock between meetings. This means that the S’ clock was definitely > > running slower (accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate) than the S > > clock during relative motion......thus no reciprocity. > > > > IRT resolves the TP nicely. The IRT math says that: 1. The S clock > > accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the S’ clock during > > relative motion. 2. The S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower > > rate than the S clock during relative motion. > > That can only happen if an absolute frame exists. There is only one absolute frame.....the aether frame or the E-Matrix frame). But both the S and S’ frame are not at rest in this absolute aether frame. > > > 3. At no time the S’ clock accumulates clock seconds at faster rate > > than the S clock during relative motion.....thus no reciprocity. 4. A > > paper on IRT is available in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > useless aether theory stuff.... Assertion is not a valid argument. > > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-12 09:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <omlg1v$hi4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428253 |
On 11/08/17 23:47, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:04:10 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: >>> >>> IRT resolves the TP nicely. The IRT math says that: 1. The S clock >>> accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the S’ clock during >>> relative motion. 2. The S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower >>> rate than the S clock during relative motion. >> >> That can only happen if an absolute frame exists. > > There is only one absolute frame.....the aether frame or the E-Matrix frame). But both the S and S’ frame are not at rest in this absolute aether frame. > >> >>> 3. At no time the S’ clock accumulates clock seconds at faster rate >>> than the S clock during relative motion.....thus no reciprocity. 4. A >>> paper on IRT is available in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >> >> useless aether theory stuff.... > > Assertion is not a valid argument. there is no aether or E-matrix, Ken. You and Einstein are wrong. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-12 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9313429c-a80b-4a02-b1c7-fbb2d5afd527@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428359 |
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 7:53:39 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > On 11/08/17 23:47, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:04:10 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > > >>> > >>> IRT resolves the TP nicely. The IRT math says that: 1. The S clock > >>> accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the S’ clock during > >>> relative motion. 2. The S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower > >>> rate than the S clock during relative motion. > >> > >> That can only happen if an absolute frame exists. > > > > There is only one absolute frame.....the aether frame or the E-Matrix frame). But both the S and S’ frame are not at rest in this absolute aether frame. > > > >> > >>> 3. At no time the S’ clock accumulates clock seconds at faster rate > >>> than the S clock during relative motion.....thus no reciprocity. 4. A > >>> paper on IRT is available in the following link: > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > >> > >> useless aether theory stuff.... > > > > Assertion is not a valid argument. > > there is no aether or E-matrix, Ken. You and Einstein are wrong. As I said before: assertion is not a valid argument. Your failed theory have no aether and my successful theory has an aether called the E-matrix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-13 09:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <omo48c$ed9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428457 |
On 13/08/17 07:24, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 7:53:39 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> 3. At no time the S’ clock accumulates clock seconds at >>>>> faster rate than the S clock during relative motion.....thus >>>>> no reciprocity. 4. A paper on IRT is available in the >>>>> following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>>> >>>> useless aether theory stuff.... >>> >>> Assertion is not a valid argument. >> >> there is no aether or E-matrix, Ken. You and Einstein are wrong. > > As I said before: assertion is not a valid argument. Your failed > theory have no aether and my successful theory has an aether called > the E-matrix. Ken, my very theory has very successfully explained one of the great mysteries of Astronomy, the reason for star variability. It has also discovered millions of planetary systems throughout the Milky Way, while even the 'experts' only claim to have discovered a few hundred. Whilst original emission theories lacked certain important features, my upgraded theory can now squash any criticism leveled at it. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-12 23:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b1e7b6d-b698-4081-a348-25d8f619b8d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427831 |
On August 8, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > It's important to realize that special relativity is a ballistic theory, What does that mean? How many flavors of theories are there? > differing from Newtonian theory only by the incorporation > of the one fact that Newton missed, namely, that all forms of > energy have inertia. Newton knew only kinetic energy. I don't see how that has inertia, it isn't a 'thing', it's merely a formula derived from the observed speed of an object. As Feynman remarked, we have no idea what energy is, we can't measure it directly, it's an accounting method, which has great predictive power of physical processes. In classical EM, the field has momentum, but still, I don't see that momentum equals inertia. Inertia indicates the resistance against a push, how does one 'push' the field? Anyway, in the modern view, inertia of massive objects results from interactions with Higgs bosons. Remove that field, and your claim that energy has inertia becomes vacuous. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-13 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <459395c0-08ea-43b0-924d-6b48a6a42f36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428483 |
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:47:12 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > Newton knew only kinetic energy. I don't see how that > has inertia, it isn't a 'thing'... The underlying insight of special relativity is that "energy is a thing" (all forms of energy), and this thing has inertia. Newton thought if you apply a constant force to a particle it will undergo constant acceleration, but this is not true, because as the particle gains kinetic energy KE its inertial mass increases by KE/c^2. This is why it takes more and more force to accelerate an object, and eventually the speed asymptotically approaches c. At that point, nearly all the work done on the object increases its energy, but the speed hardly increases at all. Of course, in terms of the instantaneous rest inertial coordinates of the particle, it is always accelerating at a constant rate. (Note that f = f' in the longitudinal direction.) > Anyway, in the modern view, inertia of massive objects > results from interactions with Higgs bosons. Remove that > field, and your claim that energy has inertia becomes vacuous. No, that's a common misconception. The Higgs interaction isn't responsible for (and doesn't explain) inertia, it explains how (some) particles have *rest mass*, rather than being massless particles like photons. But photons have inertia, and likewise those other particles would have the same inertia whether they have rest mass or not. Inertia is a property of energy. Rest mass just happens to represent a lot of bound energy. The Higgs interaction just makes some particles that would otherwise move along lightlike paths instead move along timelike paths. The Higgs interaction does not create or explain inertia for those leptons, etc. Moreover, even most of the "rest mass" we experience in daily life is actually just bound kinetic energy of the fundamental particles, e.g., the bound quarks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 12:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <omtkpg$ck3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428525 |
On 14/08/17 01:39, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:47:12 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >> Newton knew only kinetic energy. I don't see how that >> has inertia, it isn't a 'thing'... > > The underlying insight of special relativity is that "energy is a thing" (all forms of energy), and this thing has inertia. Newton thought if you apply a constant force to a particle it will undergo constant acceleration, but this is not true, because as the particle gains kinetic energy KE its inertial mass increases by KE/c^2. This is pure nonsense. When a force is applied, to an object, it slows down in as many frames as it speeds up. So its mass both increases and decreases with time according to your stupid nonsensical impossible belief system. This is why it takes more and more force to accelerate an object, and eventually the speed asymptotically approaches c. At that point, nearly all the work done on the object increases its energy, but the speed hardly increases at all. Of course, in terms of the instantaneous rest inertial coordinates of the particle, it is always accelerating at a constant rate. (Note that f = f' in the longitudinal direction.) Gawd! Why are dingleberries so bloody dumb? No object has a speed. Every other object has a speed relative to it. >> Anyway, in the modern view, inertia of massive objects >> results from interactions with Higgs bosons. Remove that >> field, and your claim that energy has inertia becomes vacuous. > > No, that's a common misconception. The Higgs interaction isn't responsible for (and doesn't explain) inertia, it explains how (some) particles have *rest mass*, rather than being massless particles like photons. But photons have inertia, and likewise those other particles would have the same inertia whether they have rest mass or not. Inertia is a property of energy. Inertia is defined as 'resistance to change'. I know of no form of energy that does not transform automatically and entirely without resistance. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9eab92f1-dac0-4414-b99d-5529c37d56a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428797 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 7:03:34 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > When a force is applied, to an object, it slows down in > as many frames as it speeds up. Right. > So its mass both increases and decreases with time... To be precise, it's inertial (relativistic) mass increases in as many frames as it decreases. > Gawd! Why are dingleberries so bloody dumb? That's not a substantive rebuttal. > No object has a speed. Every other object has a speed relative to it. Those two sentences are mutually contradictory. You say no object has a speed, but every other object has a speed (relative to it). The final phrase (relative to it) doesn't mitigate the self-contradiction. Perhaps you were trying to say something like "Objects don't have absolute speeds, they just have relative speeds", but unless you can articulate what you mean, it's probably best not to comment. > Inertia is defined as 'resistance to change'. I know of no form of > energy that does not transform automatically and entirely without > resistance. In physics, the word "inertia" isn't a general vague "resistance to change", it refers specifically to resistance to changes in the state of motion. You DO know of many forms of energy that have inertia (i.e., contribute to inertial mass of objects), because you said "we all know that" when I listed them in the other message.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 19:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <on14hv$1djh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428815 |
On 15/08/17 15:17, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 7:03:34 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >> When a force is applied, to an object, it slows down in as many >> frames as it speeds up. > > Right. > >> So its mass both increases and decreases with time... > > To be precise, it's inertial (relativistic) mass increases in as many > frames as it decreases. > >> Gawd! Why are dingleberries so bloody dumb? > > That's not a substantive rebuttal. But it is a good question. It epitomizes why the name Einstein has remained as the world's symbol of genius for so long. >> No object has a speed. Every other object has a speed relative to >> it. > > Those two sentences are mutually contradictory. You say no object > has a speed, but every other object has a speed (relative to it). > The final phrase (relative to it) doesn't mitigate the > self-contradiction. Perhaps you were trying to say something like > "Objects don't have absolute speeds, they just have relative speeds", > but unless you can articulate what you mean, it's probably best not > to comment. Of course I meant they can have relative speeds. But as I said, an object for instance in remote space has no particular speed. >> Inertia is defined as 'resistance to change'. I know of no form of >> energy that does not transform automatically and entirely without >> resistance. > > In physics, the word "inertia" isn't a general vague "resistance to > change", it refers specifically to resistance to changes in the state > of motion. No it doesn't. It applies to many aspects of life. Resistance to changes in state of motion is called mass. > You DO know of many forms of energy that have inertia > (i.e., contribute to inertial mass of objects), because you said "we > all know that" when I listed them in the other message. Name one form of energy that somehow resists change. I suppose you will say something like 'heat energy in a cold body will resist flowing to a hotter one". --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11a73817-68f0-4a0a-bd96-35f083e33470@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428970 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2:50:58 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > Of course I meant they can have relative speeds. But as I said, an > object for instance in remote space has no particular speed. Right, and the same is true for an object anywhere else. As you have said before, speed is frame dependent. The point is that kinetic energy depends on speed, so kinetic energy is also frame dependent. If it wasn't, conservation of energy would be violated (remember the mass oscillating on a spring). > > In physics, the word "inertia" isn't a general vague "resistance to > > change", it refers specifically to resistance to changes in the state > > of motion. > > No it doesn't. It applies to many aspects of life. I'm using the word "inertia" as it is used in the physics of mechanics, to refer specifically to resistance to changes in state of motion. > Resistance to changes in state of motion is called mass. No, inertia is an attribute of mass, and more fundamentally of energy, also known as relativistic mass. > Name one form of energy that somehow resists change. Again, *every* form of energy resists changes in its state of motion. I gave you examples previously, such as the fact that if we heat an object by adding a quantity of energy E, the heated object's rest mass increases by E/c^2. Also, when a block of radium emits radiation with energy E, its rest mass decreases by E/c^2. Also, some of the inertia (relativistic mass) of a tank of gasoline is due to the chemical binding energy of the molecules. Also, a rock of rest mass m0, moving at speed v, resists changes in its state of motion as if it had mass m0/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). Hence if we put energy E into accelerating the rock, the increase in relativistic mass is E/c^2. Even a photon, with no rest mass at all, has momentum, and resists changes in its state of motion according to its energy. (When a photon hits an object it exerts a "kick", and when emitted there is a recoil on the source.) > I suppose you will say something like 'heat energy in a > cold body will resist flowing to a hotter one". That thermodynamic fact is not directly relevant to the inertia of energy. It's more relevant to say if you have two identical objects at the same temperature, it will take an equal amount of force to cause them to accelerate at a certain rate, but if you heat one of the objects by putting an amount of energy E into the object, and then equal force to each of the objects, the heated object will accelerate less than the unheated object, because the relativistic mass has been increased by E/c^2. In other words, the object with more energy has more resistance to changes in its state of motion. When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the rest masses of the parts is less than the rest mass of the original atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total relativistic mass (i.e., mass-energy) is unchanged, because the parts have HUGE kinetic energies. In effect, splitting the atom converts some of the binding energy of the original atom into kinetic energy of the parts. After the released parts have given up their kinetic energy to the surroundings (by obliterating them), they have less combined rest mass than the original total uranium atom. The point of all this is just that there is nothing logically impossible about energy having inertia. In fact, it is consistent with everything we know, and explains many otherwise inexplicable things. Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E cannot logically equal mc^2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-17 08:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <on2fij$1h78$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428996 |
On 17/08/17 00:39, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2:50:58 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >> Of course I meant they can have relative speeds. But as I said, an > No, inertia is an attribute of mass, and more fundamentally of > energy, also known as relativistic mass. > >> Name one form of energy that somehow resists change. > > Again, *every* form of energy resists changes in its state of > motion. I gave you examples previously, such as the fact that if we > heat an object by adding a quantity of energy E, the heated object's > rest mass increases by E/c^2. Also, when a block of radium emits > radiation with energy E, its rest mass decreases by E/c^2. Also, > some of the inertia (relativistic mass) of a tank of gasoline is due > to the chemical binding energy of the molecules. Also, a rock of > rest mass m0, moving at speed v, resists changes in its state of > motion as if it had mass m0/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). Hence if we put > energy E into accelerating the rock, the increase in relativistic > mass is E/c^2. Even a photon, with no rest mass at all, has > momentum, and resists changes in its state of motion according to > its energy. (When a photon hits an object it exerts a "kick", and > when emitted there is a recoil on the source.) You keep making the same silly mistake. When energy is converted to mass, it is the latter that resists acceleration not the energy. > > When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the > rest masses of the parts is less than the rest mass of the original > atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total > relativistic mass (i.e., mass-energy) is unchanged, because the > parts have HUGE kinetic energies. In effect, splitting the atom > converts some of the binding energy of the original atom into kinetic > energy of the parts. After the released parts have given up their > kinetic energy to the surroundings (by obliterating them), they have > less combined rest mass than the original total uranium atom. Yes we know that. Actually, there is no proof that ordinary mass can be converted to energy according to E=mc^2. That relationship is only known to apply to binding energy. This again raises the question as to what 'mass' really is... > The point of all this is just that there is nothing logically > impossible about energy having inertia. In fact, it is consistent > with everything we know, and explains many otherwise inexplicable > things. Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that > energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E cannot logically > equal mc^2. I didn't say that. I said energy does not normally resist change...that being the crux of the definition of inertia. You are totally confused as to what inertia is and believe it is always the same thing as mass. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36f747a1-bdfb-4617-b58a-d7954499180d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429083 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > When energy is converted to mass, it is the latter that > resists acceleration not the energy. You apparently didn't read my post before responding, because it described the inertia of a photon, which has no rest mass at all. Also, it's a well known misconception among beginning students that "energy is converted to mass". Energy and mass are equivalent. Mass is just bound energy, as shown by many of the examples I've given you, e.g., the rest mass of a container of gas increases when the kinetic energy of the gas particles inside the container increases. > > When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the > > rest masses of the parts is less than the rest mass of the original > > atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total > > relativistic mass (i.e., mass-energy) is unchanged, because the > > parts have HUGE kinetic energies.... > > Yes we know that. Most people know it, but you don't seem to know it, because your entire belief system rests on the denial of these well-known facts. > > Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that > > energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E cannot > > logically equal mc^2. > > I didn't say that. The denial of E = mc^2 is the essence of your belief system. If you ever accepted this well-known fact, your beliefs would all be falsified instantly. > I said energy does not normally resist change... Before you said "does not ever", now you say "does not normally". Baby steps toward enlightenment? But I've given you many examples illustrating that energy *always* resists changes in its state of motion (whether it is in the form of mass or not), and that mass is bound energy, and that the inertial mass of any object is proportional to its energy content. You either don't read those examples, or else you say "We know all that" (presumably using the royal "we"). But if you knew it, you would stop denying it, and stop holding beliefs that directly contradict it. > You are totally confused as to what inertia is... Please look "inertia on Wikipedia, or any dictionary. Look at the "physics" definition of the word. > ... and believe it is always the same thing as mass. I explained that a photon has inertia, even though a photon has no rest mass. Now, if you are referring to what is sometimes called relativistic mass, that is indeed always strictly proportional to energy. It isn't just me telling you this. Look it up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 08:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <on542j$1c58$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429093 |
On 17/08/17 09:37, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >> When energy is converted to mass, it is the latter that resists acceleration not the energy. > > You apparently didn't read my post before responding, because it described the inertia of a photon, which has no rest > mass at all. A photon has momentum...and it probably has mass...very small mass. There is no reason to think it has inertia. You don't seem to understand what the word 'inertia' means and continually confuse it with mass. Also, it's a well known misconception among beginning students that "energy is converted to mass". Energy and mass are equivalent. Mass is just bound energy, as shown by many of the examples I've given you, e.g., the rest mass of a container of gas increases when the kinetic energy of the gas particles inside the container increases. There is no proof that the entire mass of something, say a neutron, can be converted to mc^2. I'm not saying it cannot but the whole concept of mass is so little understood that it would be presumptuous to say that it could. >>> When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the rest masses of the parts is less than the >>> rest mass of the original atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total relativistic mass (i.e., >>> mass-energy) is unchanged, because the parts have HUGE kinetic energies.... >> >> Yes we know that. > > Most people know it, but you don't seem to know it, because your entire belief system rests on the denial of these > well-known facts. Idiot, are you just a college student? I have even taught these well-known facts to others. >>> Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E >>> cannot logically equal mc^2. >> >> I didn't say that. > > The denial of E = mc^2 is the essence of your belief system. If you ever accepted this well-known fact, your beliefs > would all be falsified instantly. Idiot. E- mc^2. m DOES NOT = mc^2 >> I said energy does not normally resist change... > > Before you said "does not ever", now you say "does not normally". Baby steps toward enlightenment? > > But I've given you many examples illustrating that energy *always* resists changes in its state of motion (whether it > is in the form of mass or not), and that mass is bound energy, and that the inertial mass of any object is > proportional to its energy content. You either don't read those examples, or else you say "We know all that" > (presumably using the royal "we"). But if you knew it, you would stop denying it, and stop holding beliefs that > directly contradict it. > >> You are totally confused as to what inertia is... > > Please look "inertia on Wikipedia, or any dictionary. Look at the "physics" definition of the word. I know what inertia means. You don't. You seem to think that inertia only applies to movement, in which case inertia equal mass. Inertia applies to many things. One could say the inertia of the value of common bank shares is greater than that of the Luxembourg Submarine Manufacturing Company. >> ... and believe it is always the same thing as mass. > > I explained that a photon has inertia, even though a photon has no rest mass. A photon has momentum....or at least it behaves as though it has. This has nothing to do with the word inertia. Now, if you are referring to what is > sometimes called relativistic mass, that is indeed always strictly proportional to energy. It isn't just me telling > you this. Look it up. Poor fellow, I have taught this stuff to students that were obviously a lot brighter than you. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5caf367b-a2da-4f21-8222-9b1650f6faea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429196 |
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 3:07:20 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > A photon has momentum... There is no reason to think it has inertia. That is self-contradictory. Anything that has momentum has inertia. They both denote resistance to changes in the state of motion. > There is no proof that the entire mass of something, > say a neutron, can be converted to mc^2. I'm not saying > it cannot but the whole concept of mass is so little > understood that it would be presumptuous to say that > it could. Two points: First, there was no demonstration 100 years ago that the entire rest mass of a particle could be transformed to pure energy, but particles and their anti-particles are now seen to collide and annihilate each other, yielding pure massless energy. Second, this is irrelevant to your claim that it is *logically impossible* for all forms of energy to have inertia. (This is equivalent to the claim that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.) > Idiot, are you just a college student? I have even taught > these well-known facts to others. I don't think so, because you claim that photons "probably" have mass, but they have no inertia (even though you agree they have momentum, and even though you say mass is inertia, or sometimes not, probably), and you deny that kinetic energy is energy, and that it is frame dependent, etc., and you oscillate on whether E = mc^2, and even on those days when you agree with it, you don't see that it implies the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. > Idiot. E- mc^2. m DOES NOT = mc^2 I can't parse those sentences, but if you are agreeing that E = mc^2, then that's good, we are in agreement. Now you just need to understand why this implies that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. > I know what inertia means. You don't. You seem to think that > inertia only applies to movement, in which case inertia > equal mass. In physics, the word "inertia" means resistance to changes in the state of motion, and it's a property of mass-energy. > A photon has momentum....or at least it behaves as though > it has. This has nothing to do with the word inertia. Momentum has nothing to do with inertia?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 09:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <on7tu0$a2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429286 |
On 19/08/17 03:38, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 3:07:20 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >> A photon has momentum... There is no reason to think it has inertia. > > That is self-contradictory. Anything that has momentum has inertia. They both denote resistance to changes in the state of motion. Well that is debatable....and it does not prove that energy has inertia. A photon is more than plain energy. >> There is no proof that the entire mass of something, >> say a neutron, can be converted to mc^2. I'm not saying >> it cannot but the whole concept of mass is so little >> understood that it would be presumptuous to say that >> it could. > > Two points: First, there was no demonstration 100 years ago that the entire rest mass of a particle could be transformed to pure energy, but particles and their anti-particles are now seen to collide and annihilate each other, yielding pure massless energy. You cannot assume photons and gamma rays do not have mass. Second, this is irrelevant to your claim that it is *logically impossible* for all forms of energy to have inertia. I said I don't know of any and your example, using mass, doesn't prove anything except your lack of understanding of basic physics. (This is equivalent to the claim that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.) That is a plain fact according to he definition of a frame. >> Idiot, are you just a college student? I have even taught >> these well-known facts to others. > > I don't think so, because you claim that photons "probably" have mass, but they have no inertia (even though you agree they have momentum, and even though you say mass is inertia, or sometimes not, probably), and you deny that kinetic energy is energy, and that it is frame dependent, etc., and you oscillate on whether E = mc^2, and even on those days when you agree with it, you don't see that it implies the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. For a photon, E = h.c/lambda = mc^2 m = h/(c.lambda)....very small but finite. >> Idiot. E- mc^2. m DOES NOT = mc^2 > > I can't parse those sentences, but if you are agreeing that E = mc^2, then that's good, we are in agreement. Now you just need to understand why this implies that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. It cannot be and I have shown that it is not. Light speed from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards Earth....and gives an impression that the star is varying in brightness. The idea that OWLS will always be measured as having the value c came from LET. Einstein plagiarized the idea and his SR is totally reliant on the existence of an absolute medium. >> I know what inertia means. You don't. You seem to think that >> inertia only applies to movement, in which case inertia >> equal mass. > > In physics, the word "inertia" means resistance to changes in the state of motion, and it's a property of mass-energy. > >> A photon has momentum....or at least it behaves as though >> it has. This has nothing to do with the word inertia. > > Momentum has nothing to do with inertia? When discussing inertia in relation to movement, MASS is the relevant factor, not momentum. Momentum is not the source of resistance to change. The associated mass involved is. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 22:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2cdb569-fcef-4a54-81ff-a5f3adfa1d8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429349 |
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > You cannot assume photons and gamma rays do not have mass. I don't need not assume it. You need to prove that it is logically impossible for them not to have rest mass. You said you could do it, but you haven't done it. And your overall claim, which you also have not proven, is that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. > That is a plain fact according to he definition of a frame. Not true. Please look closely at the statement that you claim to be able to prove is logically impossible. It does not contain the word "frame", so you definition of that word is irrelevant. It refers to inertial coordinate systems, which are defined in terms of inertia, and if energy has inertia, it follows by simple grade school algebra that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. So, you need to prove that it is logically impossible for energy to have inertia, which amounts to provide that E=mc^2 is logically impossible. You cannot do this. > > The speed of light is c in terms of every system of > > inertial coordinates. > > It cannot be and I have shown that it is not. No, you have not proven that it is logically impossible. > Light speed from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards > Earth....and gives an impression that the star is varying > in brightness. That is easily ruled out by examining the frequencies and other characteristics, but it is also irrelevant, because you claimed to be able to prove that special relativity is logically impossible, not just that it is empirically false. You see, there is an abundance of empirical evidence ruling out your belefs, but you reject all the evidence on the grounds that it has been falsified... but when asked why you can be sure the evidence has been falsified, you say it's because special relativity is logically impossible. Well, okay, but unfortunately whenever you are challenged to show that it is logically impossible, you revert to saying it is empirically false. And around the circle you go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 09:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ond57f$1eo7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429363 |
On 19/08/17 15:50, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >> You cannot assume photons and gamma rays do not have mass. > > I don't need not assume it. You need to prove that it is logically impossible for them not to have rest mass. You > said you could do it, but you haven't done it. Where did I say it was logically impossible? > And your overall claim, which you also have not proven, is that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to > be c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c because lengths and times are claimed to be contracted by the same factor...depending on absolute speed. However, since there is no absolute aether, the whole idea is just an amusing but quite clever piece of SciFi. Einstein stole the idea from Lorentz and Poincare and established himself as the world's best SciFi writer...... >> That is a plain fact according to he definition of a frame. > > Not true. Please look closely at the statement that you claim to be able to prove is logically impossible. It does > not contain the word "frame", so you definition of that word is irrelevant. It refers to inertial coordinate > systems, which are defined in terms of inertia, and if energy has inertia, it follows by simple grade school algebra > that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. So, you need to prove that it is logically > impossible for energy to have inertia, which amounts to provide that E=mc^2 is logically impossible. You cannot do > this. What nonsense is this? >>> The speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. >> >> It cannot be and I have shown that it is not. > > No, you have not proven that it is logically impossible. > >> Light speed from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards Earth....and gives an impression that the star is varying in >> brightness. > > That is easily ruled out by examining the frequencies and other characteristics, but it is also irrelevant, because > you claimed to be able to prove that special relativity is logically impossible, not just that it is empirically > false. That is true. I have done both. > You see, there is an abundance of empirical evidence ruling out your belefs, but you reject all the evidence on the > grounds that it has been falsified... None of that 'evidence' exists. The experiments which are claimed to support Einstein are fabricated by the conspirators. You only have to read some of them to see how stupid they are. > but when asked why you can be sure the evidence has been falsified, you say > it's because special relativity is logically impossible. Well, okay, but unfortunately whenever you are challenged > to show that it is logically impossible, you revert to saying it is empirically false. And around the circle you > go. Idiot! If a thing is logically flawed it will naturally be empirically impossible to prove correct. Go away and get a brain. You're more clueless than Mickey Moron-y and little gawy combined.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 21:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b76eaf88-37cf-4484-b15e-6fe798d57a20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429558 |
On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > On 19/08/17 15:50, danco wrote: > > You need to prove that it is logically impossible for > > [photons] not to have rest mass. > > Where did I say it was logically impossible? If it isn't logically impossible, then your whole argument fails. > According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c because > lengths and times are claimed to be contracted by the same > factor...depending on absolute speed. First, that's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET explanation, because you've omitted the crucial fact of the temporal skew in the Lorentz transformation. Second, you are disproving your own argument, because LET is a prima facie proof that it's not logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of coordinates related by Lorentz transformations (which are the inertial coordinates). > However, since there is no absolute aether, the whole idea > is just an amusing but quite clever piece of SciFi. First, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Second, the invariance of light speed in terms of every systems of inertial coordinates follows directly from ballistic theory in vacuum, with only the added recognition that all forms of energy have inertia. > What nonsense is this? What part of the explanation don't you understand? > If a thing is logically flawed it will naturally be > empirically impossible to prove correct. Right, but you haven't shown that special relativity is logically flawed. You pointed to a claimed "paradox" that was shown to be no paradox at all. Aside from that, you've not advanced any argument at all. And your belief in the conspiracy to falsify all the data is based solely on your belief that relativity is logically impossible, even though you haven't provided any argument to support that. So, both your logical and your empirical claims appear to be completely unfounded, based purely on misunderstandings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web