Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430062 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-26 07:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-09-06 10:45 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 341 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
Page 14 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 18 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b19d5b3c-0d9b-4621-8c3c-ecec14ead690@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433063 |
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2:16:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:26:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/17/17 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:06:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:28:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> On 9/14/17 2:48 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:12:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/17 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not what is seen in equivalent experiments. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What part of what I said disagree with Einstein’s description? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein stated specifically that one observer will say that the strikes > >>>>>>>>>>>>> were simultaneous and the other observer will say that the strikes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT simultaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s specified assertions are not valid. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, he said no such thing. Here again you are inserting language which > >>>>>>>>> is not there. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If he didn’t say that then he can’t conclude the train observer will > >>>>>>>> not see the flashes to be simultaneous. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nope. "Qualification" has nothing to do with it. You make stuff up and > >>>>>>> stick it in. No wonder you don’t understand anything. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Qualification has everything to do with it. If M’ is not at equal > >>>>>> distance from the strike, he is not qualified to measure the > >>>>>> simultaneity of the strikes. Since he was at the mid point of the train > >>>>>> and the strikes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train > >>>>>> therefore he is a qualified observer and he will see the light fronts > >>>>>> from the ends of the train arrive at him simultaneously. This will agree > >>>>>> with the constant light speed postulate in the M’ frame. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But in order to get his RoS Einstein invented the fictitious closing > >>>>>> speeds for M’. He said that M’ rushed toward the light front from the > >>>>>> front of the train and receded away from the light from from the rear of > >>>>>> the train and that’s why M’ will see the light fronts from the ends of > >>>>>> the train to be non-simultaneous. This means that Einstein’s SR is a flawed > >>>>>> theory.....Why? Because you can’t have isotropy light speed in the M’ > >>>>>> frame and at the same time M’ is moving with different closing speeds > >>>>>> wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > >>>>>> > >>>>> I think you are right Ken, but no one will listen. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ken can't do third grade arithmetic and he doesn't know what words like > >>>> isotopic mean, so if you think he's right it may be a case of a > >>>> coloring-book picture of a clock showing the right time twice a day. > >>> > >>> It is you, the ignorant woodworker, who doesn’t understand what the > >>> words like isotropic means. > >> > >> Tell me what the definition of isotropic is. Not an example, a > >> definition. Not one you make up. One that is used by physicists. > > > > As you said many time, the internet is not a place to learn > > science......go read some books. > > > > I have. You haven't. No you haven’t.....you don’t know the definition of isotropy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 22:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <opupr1$3r3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433097 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2:16:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:26:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/17/17 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:06:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:28:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 2:48 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:12:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/17 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not what is seen in equivalent experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What part of what I said disagree with Einstein’s description? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein stated specifically that one observer will say that the strikes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were simultaneous and the other observer will say that the strikes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT simultaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s specified assertions are not valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, he said no such thing. Here again you are inserting language which >>>>>>>>>>> is not there. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If he didn’t say that then he can’t conclude the train observer will >>>>>>>>>> not see the flashes to be simultaneous. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. "Qualification" has nothing to do with it. You make stuff up and >>>>>>>>> stick it in. No wonder you don’t understand anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Qualification has everything to do with it. If M’ is not at equal >>>>>>>> distance from the strike, he is not qualified to measure the >>>>>>>> simultaneity of the strikes. Since he was at the mid point of the train >>>>>>>> and the strikes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train >>>>>>>> therefore he is a qualified observer and he will see the light fronts >>>>>>>> from the ends of the train arrive at him simultaneously. This will agree >>>>>>>> with the constant light speed postulate in the M’ frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But in order to get his RoS Einstein invented the fictitious closing >>>>>>>> speeds for M’. He said that M’ rushed toward the light front from the >>>>>>>> front of the train and receded away from the light from from the rear of >>>>>>>> the train and that’s why M’ will see the light fronts from the ends of >>>>>>>> the train to be non-simultaneous. This means that Einstein’s SR is a flawed >>>>>>>> theory.....Why? Because you can’t have isotropy light speed in the M’ >>>>>>>> frame and at the same time M’ is moving with different closing speeds >>>>>>>> wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you are right Ken, but no one will listen. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken can't do third grade arithmetic and he doesn't know what words like >>>>>> isotopic mean, so if you think he's right it may be a case of a >>>>>> coloring-book picture of a clock showing the right time twice a day. >>>>> >>>>> It is you, the ignorant woodworker, who doesn’t understand what the >>>>> words like isotropic means. >>>> >>>> Tell me what the definition of isotropic is. Not an example, a >>>> definition. Not one you make up. One that is used by physicists. >>> >>> As you said many time, the internet is not a place to learn >>> science......go read some books. >>> >> >> I have. You haven't. > > No you haven’t.....you don’t know the definition of isotropy. > Bullshit. You haven't read any books. This isn't a case of Odd says vs Ken says. This is about what's in books. Not about what you make up. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 08:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac1d8c34-83c2-4401-9a93-285ab3258fe8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433105 |
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 6:24:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2:16:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:26:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/17/17 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:06:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:28:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 2:48 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:12:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/17 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not what is seen in equivalent experiments. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What part of what I said disagree with Einstein’s description? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein stated specifically that one observer will say that the strikes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were simultaneous and the other observer will say that the strikes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT simultaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s specified assertions are not valid. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, he said no such thing. Here again you are inserting language which > >>>>>>>>>>> is not there. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If he didn’t say that then he can’t conclude the train observer will > >>>>>>>>>> not see the flashes to be simultaneous. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Nope. "Qualification" has nothing to do with it. You make stuff up and > >>>>>>>>> stick it in. No wonder you don’t understand anything. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Qualification has everything to do with it. If M’ is not at equal > >>>>>>>> distance from the strike, he is not qualified to measure the > >>>>>>>> simultaneity of the strikes. Since he was at the mid point of the train > >>>>>>>> and the strikes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train > >>>>>>>> therefore he is a qualified observer and he will see the light fronts > >>>>>>>> from the ends of the train arrive at him simultaneously. This will agree > >>>>>>>> with the constant light speed postulate in the M’ frame. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But in order to get his RoS Einstein invented the fictitious closing > >>>>>>>> speeds for M’. He said that M’ rushed toward the light front from the > >>>>>>>> front of the train and receded away from the light from from the rear of > >>>>>>>> the train and that’s why M’ will see the light fronts from the ends of > >>>>>>>> the train to be non-simultaneous. This means that Einstein’s SR is a flawed > >>>>>>>> theory.....Why? Because you can’t have isotropy light speed in the M’ > >>>>>>>> frame and at the same time M’ is moving with different closing speeds > >>>>>>>> wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think you are right Ken, but no one will listen. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken can't do third grade arithmetic and he doesn't know what words like > >>>>>> isotopic mean, so if you think he's right it may be a case of a > >>>>>> coloring-book picture of a clock showing the right time twice a day. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is you, the ignorant woodworker, who doesn’t understand what the > >>>>> words like isotropic means. > >>>> > >>>> Tell me what the definition of isotropic is. Not an example, a > >>>> definition. Not one you make up. One that is used by physicists. > >>> > >>> As you said many time, the internet is not a place to learn > >>> science......go read some books. > >>> > >> > >> I have. You haven't. > > > > No you haven’t.....you don’t know the definition of isotropy. > > > > Bullshit. You haven't read any books. This isn't a case of Odd says vs Ken > says. This is about what's in books. Not about what you make up. > You don’t know the definition of TWLS isotropy that’s why you tried to cover up your ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oq0lqv$vnd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433186 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 6:24:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2:16:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:26:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/17/17 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:06:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:28:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 2:48 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:12:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/17 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not what is seen in equivalent experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What part of what I said disagree with Einstein’s description? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein stated specifically that one observer will say that the strikes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were simultaneous and the other observer will say that the strikes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT simultaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s specified assertions are not valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he said no such thing. Here again you are inserting language which >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not there. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If he didn’t say that then he can’t conclude the train observer will >>>>>>>>>>>> not see the flashes to be simultaneous. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. "Qualification" has nothing to do with it. You make stuff up and >>>>>>>>>>> stick it in. No wonder you don’t understand anything. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Qualification has everything to do with it. If M’ is not at equal >>>>>>>>>> distance from the strike, he is not qualified to measure the >>>>>>>>>> simultaneity of the strikes. Since he was at the mid point of the train >>>>>>>>>> and the strikes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train >>>>>>>>>> therefore he is a qualified observer and he will see the light fronts >>>>>>>>>> from the ends of the train arrive at him simultaneously. This will agree >>>>>>>>>> with the constant light speed postulate in the M’ frame. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But in order to get his RoS Einstein invented the fictitious closing >>>>>>>>>> speeds for M’. He said that M’ rushed toward the light front from the >>>>>>>>>> front of the train and receded away from the light from from the rear of >>>>>>>>>> the train and that’s why M’ will see the light fronts from the ends of >>>>>>>>>> the train to be non-simultaneous. This means that Einstein’s SR is a flawed >>>>>>>>>> theory.....Why? Because you can’t have isotropy light speed in the M’ >>>>>>>>>> frame and at the same time M’ is moving with different closing speeds >>>>>>>>>> wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you are right Ken, but no one will listen. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken can't do third grade arithmetic and he doesn't know what words like >>>>>>>> isotopic mean, so if you think he's right it may be a case of a >>>>>>>> coloring-book picture of a clock showing the right time twice a day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is you, the ignorant woodworker, who doesn’t understand what the >>>>>>> words like isotropic means. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tell me what the definition of isotropic is. Not an example, a >>>>>> definition. Not one you make up. One that is used by physicists. >>>>> >>>>> As you said many time, the internet is not a place to learn >>>>> science......go read some books. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have. You haven't. >>> >>> No you haven’t.....you don’t know the definition of isotropy. >>> >> >> Bullshit. You haven't read any books. This isn't a case of Odd says vs Ken >> says. This is about what's in books. Not about what you make up. > > > > You don’t know the definition of TWLS isotropy that’s why you tried to > cover up your ignorance. > You mean the term you made up? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdf63853-f5ba-45c7-a2cc-11b543940a7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433193 |
On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 11:28:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 6:24:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2:16:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:26:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/17/17 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:06:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:28:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 2:48 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:12:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/17 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not what is seen in equivalent experiments. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What part of what I said disagree with Einstein’s description? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein stated specifically that one observer will say that the strikes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were simultaneous and the other observer will say that the strikes are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT simultaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s specified assertions are not valid. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he said no such thing. Here again you are inserting language which > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not there. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If he didn’t say that then he can’t conclude the train observer will > >>>>>>>>>>>> not see the flashes to be simultaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. "Qualification" has nothing to do with it. You make stuff up and > >>>>>>>>>>> stick it in. No wonder you don’t understand anything. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Qualification has everything to do with it. If M’ is not at equal > >>>>>>>>>> distance from the strike, he is not qualified to measure the > >>>>>>>>>> simultaneity of the strikes. Since he was at the mid point of the train > >>>>>>>>>> and the strikes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train > >>>>>>>>>> therefore he is a qualified observer and he will see the light fronts > >>>>>>>>>> from the ends of the train arrive at him simultaneously. This will agree > >>>>>>>>>> with the constant light speed postulate in the M’ frame. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But in order to get his RoS Einstein invented the fictitious closing > >>>>>>>>>> speeds for M’. He said that M’ rushed toward the light front from the > >>>>>>>>>> front of the train and receded away from the light from from the rear of > >>>>>>>>>> the train and that’s why M’ will see the light fronts from the ends of > >>>>>>>>>> the train to be non-simultaneous. This means that Einstein’s SR is a flawed > >>>>>>>>>> theory.....Why? Because you can’t have isotropy light speed in the M’ > >>>>>>>>>> frame and at the same time M’ is moving with different closing speeds > >>>>>>>>>> wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think you are right Ken, but no one will listen. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ken can't do third grade arithmetic and he doesn't know what words like > >>>>>>>> isotopic mean, so if you think he's right it may be a case of a > >>>>>>>> coloring-book picture of a clock showing the right time twice a day. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is you, the ignorant woodworker, who doesn’t understand what the > >>>>>>> words like isotropic means. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tell me what the definition of isotropic is. Not an example, a > >>>>>> definition. Not one you make up. One that is used by physicists. > >>>>> > >>>>> As you said many time, the internet is not a place to learn > >>>>> science......go read some books. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I have. You haven't. > >>> > >>> No you haven’t.....you don’t know the definition of isotropy. > >>> > >> > >> Bullshit. You haven't read any books. This isn't a case of Odd says vs Ken > >> says. This is about what's in books. Not about what you make up. > > > > > > > You don’t know the definition of TWLS isotropy that’s why you tried to > > cover up your ignorance. > > > > You mean the term you made up? No not the term I made up......you failed to understand that TWLS isotropy can be: 1. two one-way isotropy in the opposite or all directions. 2. the average of 2 one-way anisotropy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oq16jb$1ug0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433203 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 11:28:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 6:24:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2:16:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:26:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/17/17 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:06:18 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:28:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 2:48 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:12:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:38:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/17 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not what is seen in equivalent experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What part of what I said disagree with Einstein’s description? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein stated specifically that one observer will say that the strikes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were simultaneous and the other observer will say that the strikes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT simultaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s specified assertions are not valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he said no such thing. Here again you are inserting language which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If he didn’t say that then he can’t conclude the train observer will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not see the flashes to be simultaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. "Qualification" has nothing to do with it. You make stuff up and >>>>>>>>>>>>> stick it in. No wonder you don’t understand anything. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Qualification has everything to do with it. If M’ is not at equal >>>>>>>>>>>> distance from the strike, he is not qualified to measure the >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneity of the strikes. Since he was at the mid point of the train >>>>>>>>>>>> and the strikes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train >>>>>>>>>>>> therefore he is a qualified observer and he will see the light fronts >>>>>>>>>>>> from the ends of the train arrive at him simultaneously. This will agree >>>>>>>>>>>> with the constant light speed postulate in the M’ frame. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But in order to get his RoS Einstein invented the fictitious closing >>>>>>>>>>>> speeds for M’. He said that M’ rushed toward the light front from the >>>>>>>>>>>> front of the train and receded away from the light from from the rear of >>>>>>>>>>>> the train and that’s why M’ will see the light fronts from the ends of >>>>>>>>>>>> the train to be non-simultaneous. This means that Einstein’s SR is a flawed >>>>>>>>>>>> theory.....Why? Because you can’t have isotropy light speed in the M’ >>>>>>>>>>>> frame and at the same time M’ is moving with different closing speeds >>>>>>>>>>>> wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think you are right Ken, but no one will listen. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken can't do third grade arithmetic and he doesn't know what words like >>>>>>>>>> isotopic mean, so if you think he's right it may be a case of a >>>>>>>>>> coloring-book picture of a clock showing the right time twice a day. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is you, the ignorant woodworker, who doesn’t understand what the >>>>>>>>> words like isotropic means. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tell me what the definition of isotropic is. Not an example, a >>>>>>>> definition. Not one you make up. One that is used by physicists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you said many time, the internet is not a place to learn >>>>>>> science......go read some books. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have. You haven't. >>>>> >>>>> No you haven’t.....you don’t know the definition of isotropy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Bullshit. You haven't read any books. This isn't a case of Odd says vs Ken >>>> says. This is about what's in books. Not about what you make up. > >>> >>> >>> You don’t know the definition of TWLS isotropy that’s why you tried to >>> cover up your ignorance. >>> >> >> You mean the term you made up? > > No not the term I made up......you failed to understand that TWLS isotropy can be: > 1. two one-way isotropy in the opposite or all directions. > 2. the average of 2 one-way anisotropy. > “TWLS isotropy” is a term you made up. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 22:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a169a97e-ce11-438b-98d1-5732f04cd461@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432900 |
> > > > It is you, the ignorant woodworker, who doesn’t understand what the words like isotropic means. > > Tell me what the definition of isotropic is. Not an example, a > definition. Not one you make up. One that is used by physicists. > Isotropy Isotropy is uniformity in all orientations; it is derived from the Greek isos and tropos. Precise definitions depend on the subject area. Exceptions, or inequalities, are frequently indicated by the prefix an, hence anisotropy. Anisotropy is also used to describe situations where properties vary systematically, dependent on direction. en.wikipedia.org · Text under CC-BY-SA license
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-14 20:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ff64ced-7cb8-419a-9438-7706d7b79fbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432355 |
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Moron, the track observer measures the distance from the marks on the track (L_track) and the time interval for the signal to arrive simultaneously at the track observer is (L_track/c). The train observer does the same procedure, he measures the distance from the ends of the train (L_train) and the time interval for the light front from the ends of the train to arrive at the train observer simultaneously is (L_train/c) > > >> > > >> That’s not the procedure that Einstein described. > > > Ken, that's not the recipe Einstein prescribed. Please follow his instructions or you will get the wrong result. Oh and I have a question for you: The train observer does not know if : 1. The lightning strikes are moving relative to him 2. The lightning strikes are not moving relative to him 3. He is not moving relative to the lightning strikes or not. Strangely The Track observer: does not know if : 1. The lightning strikes are moving relative to him 2. The lightning strikes are not moving relative to him 3. He is not moving relative to the lightning strikes or not. What's that? That is not the procedure that Einstein described. Be careful to follow the procedure, Ken. The Procedure...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-14 20:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff543deb-3812-44f8-acef-0e95a37eb5a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432326 |
On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 7:11:16 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > > > > But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right. > > No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. The train observer is also qualified. The strikes happened simultaneously when M and M’ are coincided and both are at equal distances from the strikes. Therefore they both will see the strikes to be simultaneous. > Oh no Ken, the train observer does not know he is midway between the strikes, and does not know he is moving towards one strike and away from the other. In that situation what would you do, I mean won't you be accused as being so stupid? > > > > > Both observers (M and M’) are qualified observers because they are at the mid-point of the strikes when they happened simultaneously. > > Yes but they do not know. > > Yes, they are qualified observers. But as Einstein noted, they come to > > different conclusions about simultaneity of the two strikes. > Of course they do. They are in the dark so to speak about the lightning and movements. > No Einstein is wrong......relative speed between M and M’ has no effect on the simultaneity of the strikes. Beside, if M or M’ can transform the time of simultaneity to each other using the LT. > > But they don't. And they never will. > > >> You said both observers will agree that the strikes were simultaneous. > > > > > > Moron, the track observer measures the distance from the marks on the track (L_track) and the time interval for the signal to arrive simultaneously at the track observer is (L_track/c). The train observer does the same procedure, he measures the distance from the ends of the train (L_train) and the time interval for the light front from the ends of the train to arrive at the train observer simultaneously is (L_train/c) > > > > That’s not the procedure that Einstein described. Indeed. Measurements are forbidden. Measurements are forbidden. > > Idiot.....Einstein is wrong....he used the bogus assertion that the train observer has different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train to reach the bogus conclusion that the light fronts arrived at M’ non-simultaneously. So what. He got away with it didn't he. 100 years Ken. 100 +
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-15 08:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1a7fcdc-ae65-49c8-a9d1-c3fd64978cfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432393 |
On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 11:32:58 PM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 7:11:16 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right. > > > > No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. The train observer is also qualified. The strikes happened simultaneously when M and M’ are coincided and both are at equal distances from the strikes. Therefore they both will see the strikes to be simultaneous. > > > > Oh no Ken, the train observer does not know he is midway between the strikes, and does not know he is moving towards one strike and away from the other. > In that situation what would you do, I mean won't you be accused as being so stupid? . The stupidity is on your part. M’ is specified to be at the middle of the train and the strikes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train and leave marks on the track. M’ does not have the fictiteous closing wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train.....Why? Because he measured that the speed of light is isotropic in his frame. > > >> > > > Both observers (M and M’) are qualified observers because they are at the mid-point of the strikes when they happened simultaneously. > > > > > Yes but they do not know.... Yes they do know......each measures the distance from the strikes to be equal and thus they are at the mid point of the strikes. > > > > Yes, they are qualified observers. But as Einstein noted, they come to > > > different conclusions about simultaneity of the two strikes. > > > Of course they do. They are in the dark so to speak about the lightning and movements. ????????? > > > No Einstein is wrong......relative speed between M and M’ has no effect on the simultaneity of the strikes. Beside, if M or M’ can transform the time of simultaneity to each other using the LT. > > > > But they don't. And they never will. Why????? > > > > >> You said both observers will agree that the strikes were simultaneous. > > > > > > > > Moron, the track observer measures the distance from the marks on the track (L_track) and the time interval for the signal to arrive simultaneously at the track observer is (L_track/c). The train observer does the same procedure, he measures the distance from the ends of the train (L_train) and the time interval for the light front from the ends of the train to arrive at the train observer simultaneously is (L_train/c) > > > > > > That’s not the procedure that Einstein described. > Indeed. Measurements are forbidden. Measurements are forbidden. > > > > > Idiot.....Einstein is wrong....he used the bogus assertion that the train observer has different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train to reach the bogus conclusion that the light fronts arrived at M’ non-simultaneously. > > So what. He got away with it didn't he. 100 years Ken. 100 + Yes he got away with it and the so called scientists swallow it completely.....that’s sad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-16 08:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ophkqi$1e78$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432393 |
On 15/09/17 13:32, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 7:11:16 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right.
>>
>> No they are not.....he only specified that the track observer is qualified. The train observer is also qualified. The strikes happened simultaneously when M and M’ are coincided and both are at equal distances from the strikes. Therefore they both will see the strikes to be simultaneous.
>>
>
> Oh no Ken, the train observer does not know he is midway between the strikes, and does not know he is moving towards one strike and away from the other.
> In that situation what would you do, I mean won't you be accused as being so stupid?
The train observer is located at the midpoint by definition. So is the track observer.
>>>> Both observers (M and M’) are qualified observers because they are at the mid-point of the strikes when they happened simultaneously.
>>>
>
> Yes but they do not know.
They don't have to know. They don't do any calculating. It is specified in the thought experiment and the person
considering the experiment does all the calculating and logical thinking. That means you, Ken and me.
>>>> Moron, the track observer measures the distance from the marks on the track (L_track) and the time interval for the signal to arrive simultaneously at the track observer is (L_track/c). The train observer does the same procedure, he measures the distance from the ends of the train (L_train) and the time interval for the light front from the ends of the train to arrive at the train observer simultaneously is (L_train/c)
>>>
>>> That’s not the procedure that Einstein described.
> Indeed. Measurements are forbidden. Measurements are forbidden.
>
>>
>> Idiot.....Einstein is wrong....he used the bogus assertion that the train observer has different closing velocities wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train to reach the bogus conclusion that the light fronts arrived at M’ non-simultaneously.
>
> So what. He got away with it didn't he. 100 years Ken. 100 +
Einstein survived this long only because light speed is so high that nobody could directly verify or refute his P2.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <346ddf5b-f773-4acb-a08d-294bbf7ed68b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430374 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto: > > Moron......when I said events it is assumed that I meant the source of the events. > > An event has no source, Mr Seto. Imagine two objects moving wrt each > other and meeting at some point. This meeting define an event. Whichts. > one is the source of this event? The meeting of the two objects are the source of the event. In Einstein’s gedanken the lighting flashes at the ends of the train are the source of the even. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 08:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo7ffm$1l5n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430504 |
On 31/08/17 07:17, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> kenseto:
>>> Moron......when I said events it is assumed that I meant the source of the events.
>>
>> An event has no source, Mr Seto. Imagine two objects moving wrt each other and meeting at some point. This meeting
>> define an event. Whichts. one is the source of this event?
>
> The meeting of the two objects are the source of the event. In Einstein’s gedanken the lighting flashes at the ends
> of the train are the source of the even.
Ken, I think this bloke is plain dumb. Best ignore him....
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oo8j7l$11gv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430504 |
kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto: >>> Moron......when I said events it is assumed that I meant the source of the events. >> >> An event has no source, Mr Seto. Imagine two objects moving wrt each >> other and meeting at some point. This meeting define an event. Whichts. >> one is the source of this event? > > The meeting of the two objects are the source of the event. The meeting IS the event. As such it makes no sense to talk about a given speed wrt to it. Here you have two contradictory "sources" (your word) for this event to consider if you want to define a speed wrt to a "source" of the event. Conclusion, Mr Seto: your concept of "source" of an event is absolutely meaningless, as is all of your writings for ages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 14:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9n61$10r5$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430504 |
On 8/30/17 4:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto: >>> Moron......when I said events it is assumed that I meant the source of the events. >> >> An event has no source, Mr Seto. Imagine two objects moving wrt each >> other and meeting at some point. This meeting define an event. Whichts. >> one is the source of this event? > > The meeting of the two objects are the source of the event. The meeting is not moving, notice. The two objects are moving -- differently. So which object is the one co-moving and which is the one not co-moving? Babble, babble, toil and trabble. > In Einstein’s gedanken the lighting flashes at the ends of the train are the source of the even. >> > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 09:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a0c73cf-fe56-480b-96cc-746cf58827bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430583 |
On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:14:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/30/17 4:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >> kenseto: > >>> Moron......when I said events it is assumed that I meant the source of the events. > >> > >> An event has no source, Mr Seto. Imagine two objects moving wrt each > >> other and meeting at some point. This meeting define an event. Whichts. > >> one is the source of this event? > > > > The meeting of the two objects are the source of the event. > > The meeting is not moving, notice. The two objects are moving -- > differently. So which object is the one co-moving and which is the one > not co-moving? The position of the event is not moving wrt the observer......but in order to measure simultaneity you need to have two events and the observer must be at rest and at the mid-point between the positions of these two events.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 22:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oohvgr$42b$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #430931 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:14:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > The meeting of the two objects are the source of the event. >> >> The meeting is not moving, notice. The two objects are moving -- >> differently. So which object is the one co-moving and which is the one >> not co-moving? >The position of the event is not moving wrt the observer......but in A position cannot have the properties of motion. It is a position. Something at a position can have any motion in any direction. "Position of the event" is a meaningless term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooi19r$1h96$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430931 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:14:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/30/17 4:17 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>> kenseto: >>>>> Moron......when I said events it is assumed that I meant the source of the events. >>>> >>>> An event has no source, Mr Seto. Imagine two objects moving wrt each >>>> other and meeting at some point. This meeting define an event. Whichts. >>>> one is the source of this event? >>> >>> The meeting of the two objects are the source of the event. >> >> The meeting is not moving, notice. The two objects are moving -- >> differently. So which object is the one co-moving and which is the one >> not co-moving? > > The position of the event is not moving wrt the observer......but in > order to measure simultaneity you need to have two events and the > observer must be at rest and at the mid-point between the positions of these two events. > At rest with respect to what? And WHY does this observer have to be halfway between? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c4c1272-2604-4687-88d8-8fb96d8f3e7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430977 |
On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 6:55:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:14:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/30/17 4:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>> kenseto: > >>>>> Moron......when I said events it is assumed that I meant the source of the events. > >>>> > >>>> An event has no source, Mr Seto. Imagine two objects moving wrt each > >>>> other and meeting at some point. This meeting define an event. Whichts. > >>>> one is the source of this event? > >>> > >>> The meeting of the two objects are the source of the event. > >> > >> The meeting is not moving, notice. The two objects are moving -- > >> differently. So which object is the one co-moving and which is the one > >> not co-moving? > > > > The position of the event is not moving wrt the observer......but in > > order to measure simultaneity you need to have two events and the > > observer must be at rest and at the mid-point between the positions of these two events. > > > > At rest with respect to what? > And WHY does this observer have to be halfway between? At rest wrt the positions of the two events. Your argument is ridiculous.....how do you determine the simultaneity of any two events if you insisted that events have no positions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oojvtn$5ml$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #431031 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 6:55:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > The position of the event is not moving wrt the observer......but in >> > order to measure simultaneity you need to have two events and the >> > observer must be at rest and at the mid-point between the positions of these two events. >> > >> >> At rest with respect to what? >> And WHY does this observer have to be halfway between? >At rest wrt the positions of the two events. Stupid Ken, you have been repeatedly told events don't have velocities. Even if events did have velocities, when there are two events with different velocities, how can an observer be at rest with respect to two events with different motions? Wriggle, wriggle, Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web