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 3 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 18 Next page →
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 16:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oo9541$l8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430540 |
kenseto wrote: >> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto >> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, >> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? > > I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case > I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fef0c0e3-af19-42b7-8890-d111a32e2e27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430544 |
On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto wrote: > >> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto > >> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, > >> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? > > > > I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. > > You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made > sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have > a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case > > > I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. > > There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. That’s your problem......every event have a source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 14:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9n08$vm7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430570 |
On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto >>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, >>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? >>> >>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. >> >> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made >> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have >> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case >> >>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. >> >> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. > > That’s your problem......every event have a source. > Not a unique one. Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of the event that is the meeting of the two cars? Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed relative to the source? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9e6ecb2-64a8-4eeb-9186-02b3b0427d38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430576 |
On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto > >>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, > >>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? > >>> > >>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. > >> > >> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made > >> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have > >> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case > >> > >>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. > >> > >> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. > > > > That’s your problem......every event have a source. > > > > Not a unique one. > > Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR > Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of > the event that is the meeting of the two cars? > Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed > relative to the source? The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oohv6u$42b$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #430929 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR >> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of >> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? >> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed >> relative to the source? >The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. Stupid Ken, the meeting of the two cars is the event itself, not the source of the event. How can you pretend to know anything about physics if you can't even understand what's going on, or even the terminology? >Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt >the positions of these two events to do such measurement. No, Ken, you don't get to invent new rules. There is no requirement for any observer to be at a midpoint to measure sumultanity. And once again, it's meaningless to say that you are at rest relative to a position. Don't you ever wonder why IRT and Model Mechanics are such colossal failures? Perhaps part of the reason is that you make up rules that don't apply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 19:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ooj813$1bhh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430972 |
On 04/09/17 08:20, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>
>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR
>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of
>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars?
>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed
>>> relative to the source?
>
>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars.
>
> Stupid Ken, the meeting of the two cars is the event itself, not the
> source of the event.
>
> How can you pretend to know anything about physics if you can't even
> understand what's going on, or even the terminology?
>
>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt
>> the positions of these two events to do such measurement.
>
> No, Ken, you don't get to invent new rules. There is no requirement for
> any observer to be at a midpoint to measure sumultanity.
>
> And once again, it's meaningless to say that you are at rest relative to
> a position.
>
> Don't you ever wonder why IRT and Model Mechanics are such colossal
> failures? Perhaps part of the reason is that you make up rules that don't
> apply.
Why do you dingleberries like to make such fools of themselves every time they post here? Are they all masochistic or is
it just that they have been doing it all their lives and simply can't stop.
The two cars meet at a point...and that point, which is the location of the event, can be defined by coordinates in any
frame or, alternatively it can be used to define a the particular frame in which it is at rest. Every observer has a
particular speed in whatever frame is chosen and therefore has a speed relative to the point where the event took place.
It is quite legitimate to say that the observer has a speed relative to the event when quite obviously that means
relative to the point where the event took place. The choice of frame makes no difference to the observer's speed
relative to the event.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 12:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ooj8sp$1da4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431006 |
Ralph Rabbidge wrote: > On 04/09/17 08:20, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR >>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of >>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? >>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed >>>> relative to the source? >> >>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. >> >> Stupid Ken, the meeting of the two cars is the event itself, not the >> source of the event. >> >> How can you pretend to know anything about physics if you can't even >> understand what's going on, or even the terminology? >> >>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt >>> the positions of these two events to do such measurement. >> >> No, Ken, you don't get to invent new rules. There is no requirement for >> any observer to be at a midpoint to measure sumultanity. >> >> And once again, it's meaningless to say that you are at rest relative to >> a position. >> >> Don't you ever wonder why IRT and Model Mechanics are such colossal >> failures? Perhaps part of the reason is that you make up rules that >> don't >> apply. > > Why do you dingleberries like to make such fools of themselves every > time they post here? Are they all masochistic or is it just that they > have been doing it all their lives and simply can't stop. > > The two cars meet at a point...and that point, which is the location of > the event, can be defined by coordinates in any frame or, alternatively > it can be used to define a the particular frame in which it is at rest. > Every observer has a particular speed in whatever frame is chosen and > therefore has a speed relative to the point where the event took place. > It is quite legitimate to say that the observer has a speed relative to > the event when quite obviously that means relative to the point where > the event took place. The choice of frame makes no difference to the > observer's speed relative to the event. Your ability to systematically miss the point is very impressive, Mr Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 08:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ookkc2$1s9p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431007 |
On 04/09/17 20:11, Python wrote:
> Ralph Rabbidge wrote:
>>
>> Why do you dingleberries like to make such fools of themselves every
>> time they post here? Are they all masochistic or is it just that they
>> have been doing it all their lives and simply can't stop.
>>
>> The two cars meet at a point...and that point, which is the location of
>> the event, can be defined by coordinates in any frame or, alternatively
>> it can be used to define a the particular frame in which it is at rest.
>> Every observer has a particular speed in whatever frame is chosen and
>> therefore has a speed relative to the point where the event took place.
>> It is quite legitimate to say that the observer has a speed relative to
>> the event when quite obviously that means relative to the point where
>> the event took place. The choice of frame makes no difference to the
>> observer's speed relative to the event.
>
> Your ability to systematically miss the point is very impressive, Dr. Wilson.
Your ability to systematically demonstrate your obviously low IQ is very sad.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 08:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oomahm$ftk$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431006 |
On 9/4/17 4:56 AM, HGW wrote: > The two cars meet at a point...and that point, which is the location of > the event, can be defined by coordinates in any frame or, alternatively > it can be used to define a the particular frame in which it is at rest. > Every observer has a particular speed in whatever frame is chosen and > therefore has a speed relative to the point where the event took place. > It is quite legitimate to say that the observer has a speed relative to > the event when quite obviously that means relative to the point where > the event took place. The choice of frame makes no difference to the > observer's speed relative to the event. Henry is claiming that if an event happens next to a mile marker, then you can use the mile marker as a proxy for the event to determine whether the mile marker is at rest relative to the observer, and then claim that this also tells you whether the event is at rest relative to the observer. Because if the event doesn't have any duration for "at rest" to have any meaning, then find something handy that does have duration. Henry is a flaming idiot. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 08:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oomadi$ftk$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430929 |
On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto >>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, >>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? >>>>> >>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. >>>> >>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made >>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have >>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case >>>> >>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. >>>> >>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. >>> >>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. >>> >> >> Not a unique one. >> >> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR >> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of >> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? >> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed >> relative to the source? > > The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or moving) with respect to anything with no duration. Back to square one. > We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. > Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5a1e1d8-f573-495b-b098-acbf2c614f32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431177 |
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto > >>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, > >>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? > >>>>> > >>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. > >>>> > >>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made > >>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have > >>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case > >>>> > >>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. > >>>> > >>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. > >>> > >>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. > >>> > >> > >> Not a unique one. > >> > >> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR > >> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of > >> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? > >> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed > >> relative to the source? > > > > The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. > > The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or > moving) with respect to anything with no duration. Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid. > > Back to square one. > > > We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. > > Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 09:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oombc6$ib8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431183 |
On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto >>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, >>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. >>>>>> >>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made >>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have >>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case >>>>>> >>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. >>>>>> >>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. >>>>> >>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not a unique one. >>>> >>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR >>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of >>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? >>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed >>>> relative to the source? >>> >>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. >> >> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or >> moving) with respect to anything with no duration. > > Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid. Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because you cannot be at rest relative to the events. What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up. Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied that it was material at all. It was just something you made up. > >> >> Back to square one. >> >>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. >>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42d68e94-91a2-476b-8289-3bf3d46a6b05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431187 |
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto > >>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, > >>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made > >>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have > >>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. > >>>>> > >>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Not a unique one. > >>>> > >>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR > >>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of > >>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? > >>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed > >>>> relative to the source? > >>> > >>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. > >> > >> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or > >> moving) with respect to anything with no duration. > > > > Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid. > > Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the > observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because > you cannot be at rest relative to the events. Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions of the event (the ends of the train). > > What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted > something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going > to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced > that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to > say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up. > > Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied > that it was material at all. It was just something you made up. > > > > >> > >> Back to square one. > >> > >>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. > >>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oon3s3$143$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431205 |
On 9/5/17 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto >>>>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, >>>>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made >>>>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have >>>>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a unique one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR >>>>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of >>>>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? >>>>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed >>>>>> relative to the source? >>>>> >>>>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. >>>> >>>> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or >>>> moving) with respect to anything with no duration. >>> >>> Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid. >> >> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the >> observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because >> you cannot be at rest relative to the events. > > Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions of the event (the ends of the train). Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein says that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the train. Notice also that he stipulates that the lightning hits BOTH the end of the train AND the track, where the end of the train and the track meet. Notice that there are thus TWO sets of positions: one at the ends of the train and one at the marks on the track. Notice that the train observer is at rest relative to the ends of the train, but is NOT at rest relative to the marks on the track. Notice that the track observer is at rest relative to the marks on the track but NOT at rest relative to the ends of the train. There is no priority given to whether the positions should be followed with the train or whether the positions should be followed with the track marks. > > >> >> What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted >> something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going >> to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced >> that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to >> say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up. >> >> Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied >> that it was material at all. It was just something you made up. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Back to square one. >>>> >>>>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. >>>>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b255a892-8d36-4018-a590-97f66c55cea0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431247 |
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/5/17 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto > >>>>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, > >>>>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made > >>>>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have > >>>>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Not a unique one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR > >>>>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of > >>>>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? > >>>>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed > >>>>>> relative to the source? > >>>>> > >>>>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. > >>>> > >>>> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or > >>>> moving) with respect to anything with no duration. > >>> > >>> Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid. > >> > >> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the > >> observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because > >> you cannot be at rest relative to the events. > > > > Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions of the event (the ends of the train). > > Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein says > that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the train. He said that lightning strikes at the ends of the train (that means the positions of the events) at the moment when M and M’ are coincided. If not there is no way to determine if the strikes were happened at equal distance from M or M’. > Notice also that he stipulates that the lightning hits BOTH the end of > the train AND the track, where the end of the train and the track meet. > > Notice that there are thus TWO sets of positions: one at the ends of the > train and one at the marks on the track. > > Notice that the train observer is at rest relative to the ends of the > train, but is NOT at rest relative to the marks on the track. Notice > that the track observer is at rest relative to the marks on the track > but NOT at rest relative to the ends of the train. > > There is no priority given to whether the positions should be followed > with the train or whether the positions should be followed with the > track marks. > > > > > > > >> > >> What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted > >> something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going > >> to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced > >> that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to > >> say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up. > >> > >> Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied > >> that it was material at all. It was just something you made up. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Back to square one. > >>>> > >>>>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. > >>>>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 01:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oop3s4$1cn5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431345 |
On 07/09/17 00:12, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that >>>> the observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. >>>> That's because you cannot be at rest relative to the events. >>> >>> Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the >>> positions of the event (the ends of the train). >> >> Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein >> says that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the >> train. > > He said that lightning strikes at the ends of the train (that means > the positions of the events) at the moment when M and M’ are > coincided. If not there is no way to determine if the strikes were > happened at equal distance from M or M’. Ken you wont win with that argument alone. The whole gedanken depends on whether the light that reaches the observers was reflected from the train or the embankment. It's a trick question, designed to confuse the reader into accepting that light always moves at c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 16:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oop8or$d83$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #431345 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the >> >> observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because >> >> you cannot be at rest relative to the events. >> > >> > Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions >> > of the event (the ends of the train). >> >> Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein says >> that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the train. >He said that lightning strikes at the ends of the train (that means the >positions of the events) at the moment when M and M' are coincided. If >not there is no way to determine if the strikes were happened at equal >distance from M or M'. No, Ken, Einstein said the lightning struck the train ends and the platform simultaneously. Think of the lightning bolts as leaping between the train ends and platform if it helps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oopdfo$1e9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431345 |
On 9/6/17 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/5/17 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto >>>>>>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, >>>>>>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made >>>>>>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have >>>>>>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not a unique one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR >>>>>>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of >>>>>>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? >>>>>>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed >>>>>>>> relative to the source? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. >>>>>> >>>>>> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or >>>>>> moving) with respect to anything with no duration. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid. >>>> >>>> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the >>>> observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because >>>> you cannot be at rest relative to the events. >>> >>> Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions of the event (the ends of the train). >> >> Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein says >> that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the train. > > He said that lightning strikes at the ends of the train (that means the positions of the events) at the moment when M and M’ are coincided. If not there is no way to determine if the strikes were happened at equal distance from M or M’. You did not re-read the gedanken. You are relying on your faulty memory. > > >> Notice also that he stipulates that the lightning hits BOTH the end of >> the train AND the track, where the end of the train and the track meet. >> >> Notice that there are thus TWO sets of positions: one at the ends of the >> train and one at the marks on the track. >> >> Notice that the train observer is at rest relative to the ends of the >> train, but is NOT at rest relative to the marks on the track. Notice >> that the track observer is at rest relative to the marks on the track >> but NOT at rest relative to the ends of the train. >> >> There is no priority given to whether the positions should be followed >> with the train or whether the positions should be followed with the >> track marks. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted >>>> something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going >>>> to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced >>>> that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to >>>> say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up. >>>> >>>> Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied >>>> that it was material at all. It was just something you made up. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Back to square one. >>>>>> >>>>>>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. >>>>>>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce5ed45f-4632-4901-b54f-9d07e09e50a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431367 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 2:06:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/6/17 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/5/17 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto > >>>>>>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, > >>>>>>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made > >>>>>>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have > >>>>>>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Not a unique one. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR > >>>>>>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of > >>>>>>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? > >>>>>>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed > >>>>>>>> relative to the source? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or > >>>>>> moving) with respect to anything with no duration. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid. > >>>> > >>>> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the > >>>> observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because > >>>> you cannot be at rest relative to the events. > >>> > >>> Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions of the event (the ends of the train). > >> > >> Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein says > >> that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the train. > > > > He said that lightning strikes at the ends of the train (that means the positions of the events) at the moment when M and M’ are coincided. If not there is no way to determine if the strikes were happened at equal distance from M or M’. > > You did not re-read the gedanken. You are relying on your faulty memory. Nope.....The strikes hit the ends of the train and leave marks on the track when M and M’ are coincided. So both M and M’ will see the strikes to be simultaneous. Einstein used the bogus concept of non-existing closing speed that’ is rushed toward the light front from the front end and receding away from the light front from the rear to get his bogus RoS and RoS is needed to save his P2. Gee you are so stupid. > > > > > > >> Notice also that he stipulates that the lightning hits BOTH the end of > >> the train AND the track, where the end of the train and the track meet. > >> > >> Notice that there are thus TWO sets of positions: one at the ends of the > >> train and one at the marks on the track. > >> > >> Notice that the train observer is at rest relative to the ends of the > >> train, but is NOT at rest relative to the marks on the track. Notice > >> that the track observer is at rest relative to the marks on the track > >> but NOT at rest relative to the ends of the train. > >> > >> There is no priority given to whether the positions should be followed > >> with the train or whether the positions should be followed with the > >> track marks. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted > >>>> something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going > >>>> to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced > >>>> that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to > >>>> say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up. > >>>> > >>>> Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied > >>>> that it was material at all. It was just something you made up. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Back to square one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. > >>>>>>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oosbjc$uso$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431465 |
On 9/7/17 9:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 2:06:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/6/17 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/5/17 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made >>>>>>>>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have >>>>>>>>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not a unique one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here are two passing cars CAR --> <-- CAR >>>>>>>>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of >>>>>>>>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars? >>>>>>>>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed >>>>>>>>>> relative to the source? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or >>>>>>>> moving) with respect to anything with no duration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the >>>>>> observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because >>>>>> you cannot be at rest relative to the events. >>>>> >>>>> Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions of the event (the ends of the train). >>>> >>>> Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein says >>>> that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the train. >>> >>> He said that lightning strikes at the ends of the train (that means the positions of the events) at the moment when M and M’ are coincided. If not there is no way to determine if the strikes were happened at equal distance from M or M’. >> >> You did not re-read the gedanken. You are relying on your faulty memory. > > Nope. That's right you didn't. > ....The strikes hit the ends of the train and leave marks on the track when M and M’ are coincided. So how does a strike that hits the end of a train leave a mark on the track, Ken? > So both M and M’ will see the strikes to be simultaneous. Einstein used the bogus concept of non-existing closing speed that’ is rushed toward the light front from the front end and receding away from the light front from the rear to get his bogus RoS and RoS is needed to save his P2. Gee you are so stupid. >> >>> >>> >>>> Notice also that he stipulates that the lightning hits BOTH the end of >>>> the train AND the track, where the end of the train and the track meet. >>>> >>>> Notice that there are thus TWO sets of positions: one at the ends of the >>>> train and one at the marks on the track. >>>> >>>> Notice that the train observer is at rest relative to the ends of the >>>> train, but is NOT at rest relative to the marks on the track. Notice >>>> that the track observer is at rest relative to the marks on the track >>>> but NOT at rest relative to the ends of the train. >>>> >>>> There is no priority given to whether the positions should be followed >>>> with the train or whether the positions should be followed with the >>>> track marks. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted >>>>>> something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going >>>>>> to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced >>>>>> that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to >>>>>> say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied >>>>>> that it was material at all. It was just something you made up. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Back to square one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event. >>>>>>>>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source is not mentioned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web