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 4 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 18 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 06:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <532749e8-e2ba-49e8-9fda-87f491799235@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431516 |
On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:53:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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? Maybe you should contact Einstein through spirit and ask him how. > > > 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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 08:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oou6c4$1tc1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431595 |
On 9/8/17 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:53:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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? > > Maybe you should contact Einstein through spirit and ask him how. Or perhaps you should read what he actually wrote, where he explained how. > >> >>> 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 > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6585eea0-88f0-45f0-adec-de726eeaa4ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431601 |
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:36:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/8/17 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:53:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> 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? > > > > Maybe you should contact Einstein through spirit and ask him how. > > Or perhaps you should read what he actually wrote, where he explained how. Moron, it’s a gedanken.....the flashes can hit both the ends of the train as well as making marks on the track. > > > > >> > >>> 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 > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooug0r$7oi$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #431605 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:36:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/8/17 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> So how does a strike that hits the end of a train leave a mark on the >> >> track, Ken? >> > Maybe you should contact Einstein through spirit and ask him how. >> Or perhaps you should read what he actually wrote, where he explained how. >Moron, it's a gedanken.....the flashes can hit both the ends of the >train as well as making marks on the track. That's right, Stupid Ken, the lightning strikes both the train and the track at the same time. Now tell us, what is the velocity of the lightning strike events?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oouh7k$jcq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431605 |
On 9/8/17 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:36:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/8/17 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:53:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> Maybe you should contact Einstein through spirit and ask him how. >> >> Or perhaps you should read what he actually wrote, where he explained how. > > Moron, it’s a gedanken.....the flashes can hit both the ends of the train as well as making marks on the track. Especially if you re-read the gedanken itself to find what it says. So, Ken, you have landed on the realization that each lightning strike makes a mark on one end of the train and also on the track. The train observer will verify that he is midway between the marks at the ends of the train and was motionless with respect to the ends of the train. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the events, according to you. The track observer will verify that he is midway between the marks on the track and was motionlessless with respect to those marks on the track. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the events, according to you. The two qualified observers disagree on whether the events were simultaneous. What now? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 07:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oov1sp$1elb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431614 |
On 09/09/17 02:41, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/8/17 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Especially if you re-read the gedanken itself to find what it says.
>
> So, Ken, you have landed on the realization that each lightning strike makes a mark on one end of the train and also on
> the track.
>
> The train observer will verify that he is midway between the marks at the ends of the train and was motionless with
> respect to the ends of the train. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the events, according to you.
>
> The track observer will verify that he is midway between the marks on the track and was motionlessless with respect to
> those marks on the track. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the events, according to you.
>
> The two qualified observers disagree on whether the events were simultaneous.
>
> What now?
It is obvious 'what now'.
The two observers do not see the actual flashes. They see reflections of them. Unless they know the relative speeds of
those reflections, neither can make any statement about their absolute simultaneity.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 16:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oov38v$1g9r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431637 |
On 9/8/17 4:25 PM, HGW wrote: > On 09/09/17 02:41, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/8/17 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> Especially if you re-read the gedanken itself to find what it says. >> >> So, Ken, you have landed on the realization that each lightning strike >> makes a mark on one end of the train and also on the track. >> >> The train observer will verify that he is midway between the marks at >> the ends of the train and was motionless with respect to the ends of >> the train. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the >> events, according to you. >> >> The track observer will verify that he is midway between the marks on >> the track and was motionlessless with respect to those marks on the >> track. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the >> events, according to you. >> >> The two qualified observers disagree on whether the events were >> simultaneous. >> >> What now? > > It is obvious 'what now'. > The two observers do not see the actual flashes. They see reflections of > them. I saw your earlier tossing of straw about this nonsense. Perhaps you'd like to say that the observers were clearly wearing polarized sunglasses and there's a delay caused by that as well. Plus their eyes were closed. Plus they were blinded by the sun. Was it worth it to post such crap? > Unless they know the relative speeds of those reflections, neither > can make any statement about their absolute simultaneity. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-10 09:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op1tar$7s3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431640 |
On 09/09/17 07:49, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/8/17 4:25 PM, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> What now?
>>
>> It is obvious 'what now'.
>> The two observers do not see the actual flashes. They see reflections of them.
>
> I saw your earlier tossing of straw about this nonsense.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to say that the observers were clearly wearing polarized sunglasses and there's a delay caused by
> that as well. Plus their eyes were closed. Plus they were blinded by the sun.
>
> Was it worth it to post such crap?
It isn't surprising that good Science often looks like crap to mere woodworkers.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 22:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oov52c$fts$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #431637 |
HGW <HW@home.net> writes: >On 09/09/17 02:41, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/8/17 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >> Especially if you re-read the gedanken itself to find what it says. >> >> So, Ken, you have landed on the realization that each lightning strike makes a mark on one end of the train and also on >> the track. >> >> The train observer will verify that he is midway between the marks at the ends of the train and was motionless with >> respect to the ends of the train. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the events, according to you. >> >> The track observer will verify that he is midway between the marks on the track and was motionlessless with respect to >> those marks on the track. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the events, according to you. >> >> The two qualified observers disagree on whether the events were simultaneous. >> >> What now? >It is obvious 'what now'. >The two observers do not see the actual flashes. They see reflections of them. Unless they know the relative speeds of >those reflections, neither can make any statement about their absolute simultaneity. Ralph, you are getting really, really desperate with your feeble attempt to salvage DirtyBaThWater. Reflections, Ralph? Really? Where did Einstein mention any reflections?? Man up, Ralph, and admit that DirtyBaThWater is a failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 02:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3df6a55b-2d07-4cab-9637-a7de372f7d43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431614 |
W dniu piątek, 8 września 2017 18:41:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > The train observer will verify that he And a street observer will verify trees and buildings are running around. It's obviously true! Gurus said! Gurus can never be wrong!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 08:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27d058b8-352a-4117-a1cd-85c34a763190@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431614 |
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 12:41:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/8/17 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:36:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/8/17 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:53:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> 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? > >>> > >>> Maybe you should contact Einstein through spirit and ask him how. > >> > >> Or perhaps you should read what he actually wrote, where he explained how. > > > > Moron, it’s a gedanken.....the flashes can hit both the ends of the train as well as making marks on the track. > > Especially if you re-read the gedanken itself to find what it says. > > So, Ken, you have landed on the realization that each lightning strike > makes a mark on one end of the train and also on the track. Yes.....so? > > The train observer will verify that he is midway between the marks at > the ends of the train and was motionless with respect to the ends of the > train. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the > events, according to you. Yes.....so? > > The track observer will verify that he is midway between the marks on > the track and was motionlessless with respect to those marks on the > track. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the > events, according to you. Yes.....so? > > The two qualified observers disagree on whether the events were > simultaneous. No moron....both observer agree that the strikes were simultaneous but the simultaneity occurred at different time intervals according to each of their clock. > > What now? > So go and make some toy.....physics is out of your competency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 08:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op63q7$spl$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431688 |
On 9/9/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 12:41:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/8/17 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:36:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/8/17 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:53:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you should contact Einstein through spirit and ask him how. >>>> >>>> Or perhaps you should read what he actually wrote, where he explained how. >>> >>> Moron, it’s a gedanken.....the flashes can hit both the ends of the train as well as making marks on the track. >> >> Especially if you re-read the gedanken itself to find what it says. >> >> So, Ken, you have landed on the realization that each lightning strike >> makes a mark on one end of the train and also on the track. > > Yes.....so? > >> >> The train observer will verify that he is midway between the marks at >> the ends of the train and was motionless with respect to the ends of the >> train. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the >> events, according to you. > > Yes.....so? >> >> The track observer will verify that he is midway between the marks on >> the track and was motionlessless with respect to those marks on the >> track. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the >> events, according to you. > > Yes.....so? > >> >> The two qualified observers disagree on whether the events were >> simultaneous. > > No moron....both observer agree that the strikes were simultaneous but the simultaneity occurred at different time intervals according to each of their clock. That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is not what is seen in equivalent experiments. > >> >> What now? >> > > So go and make some toy.....physics is out of your competency. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e51e2e14-e2e7-4dfc-9f78-6b6c0233abf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431899 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 11 września 2017 15:41:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > No moron....both observer agree that the strikes were simultaneous but the simultaneity occurred at different time intervals according to each of their clock. > > That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is > not what is seen in equivalent experiments. Which, precisely, experiments do you mean, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 15:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <op643d$tgd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431899 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/9/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: ... >> No moron....both observer agree that the strikes were simultaneous but >> the simultaneity occurred at different time intervals according to >> each of their clock. > > That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is > not what is seen in equivalent experiments. Moreover what Seto wrote above is just completely meaningless, as usual. "simultaneity occurred at different time intervals", oh dear...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9466a0a-e2bd-439f-803e-aee7193c9a8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431901 |
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:46:25 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 9/9/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > ... > >> No moron....both observer agree that the strikes were simultaneous but > >> the simultaneity occurred at different time intervals according to > >> each of their clock. > > > > That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is > > not what is seen in equivalent experiments. > > Moreover what Seto wrote above is just completely meaningless, as usual. > > "simultaneity occurred at different time intervals", oh dear... Moron......The track observer measures the time interval for the simultaneity to occur in his frame is Delta(t_track) and the train observer measures the time interval for the simultaneity to occur in his frame is Delta(t_train). Delta(t_track) is not equal to Delta(t_train) because the two clocks were accumulating clock seconds at different rates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 17:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <op68do$17b1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431903 |
kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:46:25 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/9/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >> ... >>>> No moron....both observer agree that the strikes were simultaneous but >>>> the simultaneity occurred at different time intervals according to >>>> each of their clock. >>> >>> That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is >>> not what is seen in equivalent experiments. >> >> Moreover what Seto wrote above is just completely meaningless, as usual. >> >> "simultaneity occurred at different time intervals", oh dear... > > Moron......The track observer measures the time interval for the simultaneity to occur in his frame is > Delta(t_track) and the train observer measures the time interval for the simultaneity to occur in his frame is Delta(t_train). > Delta(t_track) is not equal to Delta(t_train) because the two clocks were accumulating clock seconds at different rates. It's still as absurd as ever, as usual with your posts. t_track and t_train are both a given time on a given clock, aren't they? You may express them in seconds, right? What (the fuck) is the meaning of Delta(5s)? Delta(42s)? And so on...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ab2d404-abff-4c1e-b9aa-55bde2c8fc31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431905 |
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:00:17 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:46:25 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >> Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 9/9/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> ... > >>>> No moron....both observer agree that the strikes were simultaneous but > >>>> the simultaneity occurred at different time intervals according to > >>>> each of their clock. > >>> > >>> That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is > >>> not what is seen in equivalent experiments. > >> > >> Moreover what Seto wrote above is just completely meaningless, as usual. > >> > >> "simultaneity occurred at different time intervals", oh dear... > > > > Moron......The track observer measures the time interval for the simultaneity to occur in his frame is > > Delta(t_track) and the train observer measures the time interval for the simultacluelessneity to occur in his frame is Delta(t_train). > > Delta(t_track) is not equal to Delta(t_train) because the two clocks were accumulating clock seconds at different rates. > > It's still as absurd as ever, as usual with your posts. > > t_track and t_train are both a given time on a given clock, aren't they? > You may express them in seconds, right? > > What (the fuck) is the meaning of Delta(5s)? Delta(42s)? And so on... You are clueless and I have no idea what you are talking about. Each observer measures the time interval for the signal to arrive at him simultaneously. He (the observer ) can use the LT to transform his measure time interval to the other observer. For example the track observer would say that the time of simultaneity in the train is (Delta(t_track)/gamma) on the train clock. And the train observer would say that the time of simultaneity in the track clock is ((gamma*Delta(t_train))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 18:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <op6e0l$1mmr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431920 |
kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:00:17 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto wrote: ... >>> Delta(t_track) is not equal to Delta(t_train) because the two clocks were accumulating clock seconds at different rates. >> >> It's still as absurd as ever, as usual with your posts. >> >> t_track and t_train are both a given time on a given clock, aren't they? >> You may express them in seconds, right? >> >> What (the fuck) is the meaning of Delta(5s)? Delta(42s)? And so on... > > You are clueless and I have no idea what you are talking about. You are so mentally ill that you cannot even follow your own garbage, Mr Seto? > Each observer measures the time interval for the signal to arrive at > him simultaneously. A time of arrival is NOT a time interval. It's a time as read on a clock, such as "42s". So my question, what is "Delta(42s)"? As I pointed out you cannot give sense to your own meaningless babble, such as "Delta(t_track)" or "time interval of arrival".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <911b8188-fb67-4e35-9283-f9bddab7370b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431922 |
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:35:37 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:00:17 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > ... > >>> Delta(t_track) is not equal to Delta(t_train) because the two clocks were accumulating clock seconds at different rates. > >> > >> It's still as absurd as ever, as usual with your posts. > >> > >> t_track and t_train are both a given time on a given clock, aren't they? > >> You may express them in seconds, right? > >> > >> What (the fuck) is the meaning of Delta(5s)? Delta(42s)? And so on... > > > > You are clueless and I have no idea what you are talking about. > > You are so mentally ill that you cannot even follow your own garbage, > Mr Seto? You are stupid. > > > Each observer measures the time interval for the signal to arrive at > > him simultaneously. > > A time of arrival is NOT a time interval. It's a time as read on a > clock, such as "42s". So my question, what is “Delta(42s)"? Moron, the track observer measures the distance from the marks on the track (L_track) and the time interval for the signal to arrive simultaneously at the track observer is (L_track/c). The train observer does the same procedure, he measures the distance from the ends of the train (L_train) and the time interval for the light front from the ends of the train to arrive at the train observer simultaneously is (L_train/c) The two time intervals is related via the LT as follows: (L_train/c) =gamma*(L_track/c) Gee you are so stupid. > > As I pointed out you cannot give sense to your own meaningless babble, > such as "Delta(t_track)" or "time interval of arrival".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 11:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op6f6j$1ose$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431920 |
On 9/11/17 11:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > Each observer measures the time interval for the signal to arrive at him simultaneously. No, Ken. He is not measuring a time interval. He is just checking whether he sees the two flashes at the same time or not. That is something you do without measuring any interval. Do you know what we're talking about when we say we check whether two things happen at the same time? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web