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 5 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 18 Next page →
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 20:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op8ebq$1bqt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431929 |
On 12/09/17 02:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 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?
Bodkin, if the two flashes are absolutely simultaneous, their light will arrive at the same instant at their midpoint.
To calculate that, you have to establish whether their horizontal speed is zero in the frame of the train or the
embankment.
If it is the embankment, then the midpoint of the train will not coincide with the midpoint of the embankment as the
light from the flashes meet at that latter point. So the fact that the train observer will not see the flashes arrive
simultaneously does not in any way detract from the fact that they did occur absolutely simultaneously.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 08:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op8p5l$1mt$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432012 |
On 9/12/17 5:53 AM, HGW wrote: > On 12/09/17 02:55, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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? > > Bodkin, if the two flashes are absolutely simultaneous Chaff noted. > , their light will > arrive at the same instant at their midpoint. And if they are not simultaenous, they won't. > To calculate that, you have to establish whether their horizontal speed > is zero in the frame of the train or the embankment. How is a flash's speed determined? > If it is the embankment, then the midpoint of the train will not > coincide with the midpoint of the embankment as the light from the > flashes meet at that latter point. So the fact that the train observer > will not see the flashes arrive simultaneously does not in any way > detract from the fact that they did occur absolutely simultaneously. And so you are saying that the laws of physics are not the same for different frames. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-13 08:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op9mdc$1ti9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432029 |
On 12/09/17 23:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/12/17 5:53 AM, HGW wrote:
>> On 12/09/17 02:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Bodkin, if the two flashes are absolutely simultaneous
>
> Chaff noted.
>
>> , their light will arrive at the same instant at their midpoint.
>
> And if they are not simultaenous, they won't.
I'm glad you were smart enough to work that out....and a bit surprised actually....
>> To calculate that, you have to establish whether their horizontal speed is zero in the frame of the train or the
>> embankment.
>
> How is a flash's speed determined?
If we assume the path of the flash defines a vertical line relative to the Earth's surface, then that line will have a
horizontal velocity in the frames of both the train and the embankment. If that is zero in the embankment frame, light
emitted by the flash at the instant it hits the ground will move at c relative to the ground. It will move at c+v
relative to the train.
Get it now? It is quite simple really. I don't know how a genius like Einstein could make such a shambles of it.
>> If it is the embankment, then the midpoint of the train will not coincide with the midpoint of the embankment as the
>> light from the flashes meet at that latter point. So the fact that the train observer will not see the flashes arrive
>> simultaneously does not in any way detract from the fact that they did occur absolutely simultaneously.
>
> And so you are saying that the laws of physics are not the same for different frames.
The laws are the same... values of some variables are obviously not. The value of TIME is not frame dependent.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 18:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op9pbv$1vm$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432087 |
On 9/12/17 5:17 PM, HGW wrote: > On 12/09/17 23:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/17 5:53 AM, HGW wrote: >>> On 12/09/17 02:55, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> Bodkin, if the two flashes are absolutely simultaneous >> >> Chaff noted. >> >>> , their light will arrive at the same instant at their midpoint. >> >> And if they are not simultaenous, they won't. > > I'm glad you were smart enough to work that out....and a bit surprised > actually.... > >>> To calculate that, you have to establish whether their horizontal >>> speed is zero in the frame of the train or the embankment. >> >> How is a flash's speed determined? > > If we assume the path of the flash defines a vertical line relative to > the Earth's surface, Why would you use a vertical line anchored to the earth's surface as a proxy for an event? > then that line will have a horizontal velocity in > the frames of both the train and the embankment. If that is zero in the > embankment frame, light emitted by the flash at the instant it hits the > ground will move at c relative to the ground. It will move at c+v > relative to the train. > Get it now? It is quite simple really. I don't know how a genius like > Einstein could make such a shambles of it. > >>> If it is the embankment, then the midpoint of the train will not >>> coincide with the midpoint of the embankment as the light from the >>> flashes meet at that latter point. So the fact that the train >>> observer will not see the flashes arrive simultaneously does not in >>> any way detract from the fact that they did occur absolutely >>> simultaneously. >> >> And so you are saying that the laws of physics are not the same for >> different frames. > > The laws are the same... values of some variables are obviously not. The > value of TIME is not frame dependent. And is measured simultaneity frame dependent or not? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-14 08:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opcc50$ne4$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432092 |
On 13/09/17 09:07, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/12/17 5:17 PM, HGW wrote:
>>>> Bodkin, if the two flashes are absolutely simultaneous
>>>
>>> Chaff noted.
>>>
>>>> , their light will arrive at the same instant at their midpoint.
>>>
>>> And if they are not simultaenous, they won't.
>>
>> I'm glad you were smart enough to work that out....and a bit surprised actually....
>>
>>>> To calculate that, you have to establish whether their horizontal speed is zero in the frame of the train or the
>>>> embankment.
>>>
>>> How is a flash's speed determined?
>>
>> If we assume the path of the flash defines a vertical line relative to the Earth's surface,
>
> Why would you use a vertical line anchored to the earth's surface as a proxy for an event?
Well, we wouldn't...but we will just for now, eh.
>> then that line will have a horizontal velocity in the frames of both the train and the embankment. If that is zero in
>> the embankment frame, light emitted by the flash at the instant it hits the ground will move at c relative to the
>> ground. It will move at c+v relative to the train.
>> Get it now? It is quite simple really. I don't know how a genius like Einstein could make such a shambles of it.
>>
>>>> If it is the embankment, then the midpoint of the train will not coincide with the midpoint of the embankment as the
>>>> light from the flashes meet at that latter point. So the fact that the train observer will not see the flashes
>>>> arrive simultaneously does not in any way detract from the fact that they did occur absolutely simultaneously.
>>>
>>> And so you are saying that the laws of physics are not the same for different frames.
>>
>> The laws are the same... values of some variables are obviously not. The value of TIME is not frame dependent.
>
> And is measured simultaneity frame dependent or not?
Measurements have to be corrected for communication travel time.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-14 09:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ope2qf$1fhr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432230 |
On 9/13/17 5:40 PM, HGW wrote: > On 13/09/17 09:07, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/17 5:17 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>>> Bodkin, if the two flashes are absolutely simultaneous >>>> >>>> Chaff noted. >>>> >>>>> , their light will arrive at the same instant at their midpoint. >>>> >>>> And if they are not simultaenous, they won't. >>> >>> I'm glad you were smart enough to work that out....and a bit >>> surprised actually.... >>> >>>>> To calculate that, you have to establish whether their horizontal >>>>> speed is zero in the frame of the train or the embankment. >>>> >>>> How is a flash's speed determined? >>> >>> If we assume the path of the flash defines a vertical line relative >>> to the Earth's surface, >> >> Why would you use a vertical line anchored to the earth's surface as a >> proxy for an event? > > Well, we wouldn't...but we will just for now, eh. Nah. > >>> then that line will have a horizontal velocity in the frames of both >>> the train and the embankment. If that is zero in the embankment >>> frame, light emitted by the flash at the instant it hits the ground >>> will move at c relative to the ground. It will move at c+v relative >>> to the train. >>> Get it now? It is quite simple really. I don't know how a genius like >>> Einstein could make such a shambles of it. >>> >>>>> If it is the embankment, then the midpoint of the train will not >>>>> coincide with the midpoint of the embankment as the light from the >>>>> flashes meet at that latter point. So the fact that the train >>>>> observer will not see the flashes arrive simultaneously does not in >>>>> any way detract from the fact that they did occur absolutely >>>>> simultaneously. >>>> >>>> And so you are saying that the laws of physics are not the same for >>>> different frames. >>> >>> The laws are the same... values of some variables are obviously not. >>> The value of TIME is not frame dependent. >> >> And is measured simultaneity frame dependent or not? > > Measurements have to be corrected for communication travel time. Yes, and that's done here. Remember that both the embankment observer and the train observer can verify at any time that they are midway between the events. Therefore the communication travel time is equal for both strikes for either observer. > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-15 12:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opfc7v$1hhr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432332 |
On 15/09/17 00:13, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/13/17 5:40 PM, HGW wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The laws are the same... values of some variables are obviously not. The value of TIME is not frame dependent.
>>>
>>> And is measured simultaneity frame dependent or not?
>>
>> Measurements have to be corrected for communication travel time.
>
> Yes, and that's done here. Remember that both the embankment observer and the train observer can verify at any time
> that they are midway between the events. Therefore the communication travel time is equal for both strikes for either
> observer.
Not so. You have to specify whether the flashes were moving horizontally relative to the the train or to the ground when
they struck. That will determine their relative speeds towards both observers.
It is only the assumption of constant light speed that makes it hard for you to understand this.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-15 08:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <opgkro$1iod$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432389 |
On 9/14/17 9:00 PM, HGW wrote: > On 15/09/17 00:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/13/17 5:40 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> The laws are the same... values of some variables are obviously >>>>> not. The value of TIME is not frame dependent. >>>> >>>> And is measured simultaneity frame dependent or not? >>> >>> Measurements have to be corrected for communication travel time. >> >> Yes, and that's done here. Remember that both the embankment observer >> and the train observer can verify at any time >> that they are midway between the events. Therefore the communication >> travel time is equal for both strikes for either >> observer. > > Not so. You have to specify whether the flashes were moving horizontally > relative to the the train or to the ground when they struck. Flashes have no duration. They have no state of motion as a result. Therefore it is silly to attribute to them (arbitrarily) a motion, just for the sake of doing so. You earlier proposed *defining* a line anchored to the surface of the earth as a proxy for the flash, where that line's motion would serve. But that was a completely arbitrary choice. Dance, Henry, Dance. > That will > determine their relative speeds towards both observers. > It is only the assumption of constant light speed that makes it hard for > you to understand this. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-16 08:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ophja2$1c1v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432445 |
On 15/09/17 23:33, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/14/17 9:00 PM, HGW wrote:
>> On 15/09/17 00:13, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 9/13/17 5:40 PM, HGW wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The laws are the same... values of some variables are obviously not. The value of TIME is not frame
>>>>>> dependent.
>>>>>
>>>>> And is measured simultaneity frame dependent or not?
>>>>
>>>> Measurements have to be corrected for communication travel time.
>>>
>>> Yes, and that's done here. Remember that both the embankment observer and the train observer can verify at any
>>> time that they are midway between the events. Therefore the communication travel time is equal for both strikes
>>> for either observer.
>>
>> Not so. You have to specify whether the flashes were moving horizontally relative to the the train or to the ground
>> when they struck.
>
> Flashes have no duration. They have no state of motion as a result.
That shows how little you know about physics. The flashes are essentially one dimensional but that is sufficient to
provide them with locations and horizontal velocities in all frames.
> Therefore it is silly to attribute to them (arbitrarily) a motion, just for the sake of doing so.
Bodkin, you haven't a clue. The silliest thing is answering your deliberately disruptive and totally uninformed nonsense.
The speed of the light emitted by the flash is not the same in the two frames. Ken is correct when he says that the best
place to test for simultaneity is the midpoint and at rest with both sources. The mid points of the train and the
embankment cannot both be at rest with the flashes.
Simple, eh?
> You earlier proposed *defining* a line anchored to the surface of
> the earth as a proxy for the flash, where that line's motion would serve. But that was a completely arbitrary
> choice.
Well Bodkin, if you cannot see why that is important, you must be just another indoctrinated dingleberry who believes
light always moves at c.
> Dance, Henry, Dance.
I can't dance. I'm too busy rolling around laughing at your naivity.
>
>> That will determine their relative speeds towards both observers. It is only the assumption of constant light speed
>> that makes it hard for you to understand this.
>>
>
>
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-16 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <opjpkg$3f4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #432519 |
HGW <HW@home.net> writes: >On 15/09/17 23:33, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/14/17 9:00 PM, HGW wrote: >>> Not so. You have to specify whether the flashes were moving horizontally relative to the the train or to the ground >>> when they struck. >> >> Flashes have no duration. They have no state of motion as a result. >That shows how little you know about physics. The flashes are essentially >one dimensional but that is sufficient to >provide them with locations and horizontal velocities in all frames. No, Ralph, the whole gedanken involves events which not only have no duration, they don't have any length. You are taking the lightning bolt thing too literally by thinking of lightning jumping from here to there, apparently. Think of a literal flash, not a lightning bolt, Ralph. >> Therefore it is silly to attribute to them (arbitrarily) a motion, just for the sake of doing so. >Bodkin, you haven't a clue. The silliest thing is answering your >deliberately disruptive and totally uninformed nonsense. >The speed of the light emitted by the flash is not the same in the two >frames. Ken is correct when he says that the best >place to test for simultaneity is the midpoint and at rest with both >sources. The mid points of the train and the >embankment cannot both be at rest with the flashes. Ralph, you can't be at rest relative to something like a flash/event which takes no time, and therefore doesn't have the property of motion. >Simple, eh? The problem is, if the description is simplified so much that even you can understand it, it becomes just plain wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-17 07:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opk650$190b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432595 |
On 17/09/17 04:13, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <HW@home.net> writes:
>>> Flashes have no duration. They have no state of motion as a result.
>
>> That shows how little you know about physics. The flashes are essentially
>> one dimensional but that is sufficient to
>> provide them with locations and horizontal velocities in all frames.
>
> No, Henry, the whole gedanken involves events which not only have no
> duration, they don't have any length. You are taking the lightning bolt
> thing too literally by thinking of lightning jumping from here to there,
> apparently. Think of a literal flash, not a lightning bolt, Henry.
Poor idiot! The flashes are meant to represent point events. Those points have locations and velocities in all frames.
.....that's tod hard for Moron-y obviously.....
>>> Therefore it is silly to attribute to them (arbitrarily) a motion, just for the sake of doing so.
>
>> Bodkin, you haven't a clue. The silliest thing is answering your
>> deliberately disruptive and totally uninformed nonsense.
>> The speed of the light emitted by the flash is not the same in the two
>> frames. Ken is correct when he says that the best
>> place to test for simultaneity is the midpoint and at rest with both
>> sources. The mid points of the train and the
>> embankment cannot both be at rest with the flashes.
>
> Henry, you can't be at rest relative to something like a flash/event
> which takes no time, and therefore doesn't have the property of motion.
What crap!....typical!
>> Simple, eh?
>
> The problem is, if the description is simplified so much that even you can
> understand it, it becomes just plain wrong.
Simple.... but far too hard for mentally disabled mickey moron....
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-16 20:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22447486-3f24-4445-99d2-dcd8080583b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432617 |
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+5:30, HGW wrote: > On 17/09/17 04:13, Michael Moroney wrote: > > HGW <HW@home.net> writes: > > >>> Flashes have no duration. They have no state of motion as a result. > > > >> That shows how little you know about physics. The flashes are essentially > >> one dimensional but that is sufficient to > >> provide them with locations and horizontal velocities in all frames. > > > > No, Henry, the whole gedanken involves events which not only have no > > duration, they don't have any length. You are taking the lightning bolt > > thing too literally by thinking of lightning jumping from here to there, > > apparently. Think of a literal flash, not a lightning bolt, Henry. > > Poor idiot! The flashes are meant to represent point events. Those points have locations and velocities in all frames. > .....that's tod hard for Moron-y obviously..... > >>> Therefore it is silly to attribute to them (arbitrarily) a motion, just for the sake of doing so. > > > >> Bodkin, you haven't a clue. The silliest thing is answering your > >> deliberately disruptive and totally uninformed nonsense. > >> The speed of the light emitted by the flash is not the same in the two > >> frames. Ken is correct when he says that the best > >> place to test for simultaneity is the midpoint and at rest with both > >> sources. The mid points of the train and the > >> embankment cannot both be at rest with the flashes. > > > > Henry, you can't be at rest relative to something like a flash/event > > which takes no time, and therefore doesn't have the property of motion. > > What crap!....typical! > > >> Simple, eh? > > > > The problem is, if the description is simplified so much that even you can > > understand it, it becomes just plain wrong. > > Simple.... but far too hard for mentally disabled mickey moron.... > > > > -- > > HGW So the lightning strikes struck no location in each of the observers coordinate frames? If not what is the location.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-17 18:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opldfd$p9n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432643 |
On 17/09/17 13:03, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 3:17:16 AM UTC+5:30, HGW wrote:
>>
>> Poor idiot! The flashes are meant to represent point events. Those points have locations and velocities in all frames.
>> .....that's tod hard for Moron-y obviously.....
>>>>> Therefore it is silly to attribute to them (arbitrarily) a motion, just for the sake of doing so.
>>>
>>>> Bodkin, you haven't a clue. The silliest thing is answering your
>>>> deliberately disruptive and totally uninformed nonsense.
>>>> The speed of the light emitted by the flash is not the same in the two
>>>> frames. Ken is correct when he says that the best
>>>> place to test for simultaneity is the midpoint and at rest with both
>>>> sources. The mid points of the train and the
>>>> embankment cannot both be at rest with the flashes.
>>>
>>> Henry, you can't be at rest relative to something like a flash/event
>>> which takes no time, and therefore doesn't have the property of motion.
>>
>> What crap!....typical!
>>
>>>> Simple, eh?
>>>
>>> The problem is, if the description is simplified so much that even you can
>>> understand it, it becomes just plain wrong.
>>
>> Simple.... but far too hard for mentally disabled mickey moron....
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> HGW
>
> So the lightning strikes struck no location in each of the observers coordinate frames? If not what is the location.
Be careful you reply to the right person. I gather you meant to direct that question to Bodkin or Moron-y.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-17 22:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <opmteq$p0d$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #432617 |
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <HW@home.net> writes: >On 17/09/17 04:13, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <HW@home.net> writes: >>>> Flashes have no duration. They have no state of motion as a result. >> >>> That shows how little you know about physics. The flashes are essentially >>> one dimensional but that is sufficient to >>> provide them with locations and horizontal velocities in all frames. >> >> No, Ralph, the whole gedanken involves events which not only have no >> duration, they don't have any length. You are taking the lightning bolt >> thing too literally by thinking of lightning jumping from here to there, >> apparently. Think of a literal flash, not a lightning bolt, Ralph. >Poor idiot! The flashes are meant to represent point events. Exactly, Ralph. > Those points have locations and velocities in all frames. No, Ralph, they have locations, but no velocities. Remember, an event in physics takes no time. It is a point in time as well as position. It cannot have a velocity because it simply does not make sense. OK, Ralph, let's use this as an example. The train and embankment both have rods sticking out, which make contact when the train passes. The train has one at each end. The flashes are caused when the train's rod touches the embankment rod when it passes. Understand, Ralph? What is the velocity of the flash when the train rod touches the embankment rod? Give a valid reason for your answer. Remember the train rod is stationary relative to the train and the embankment rod is stationary relative to the embankment. (Ralph won't answer this, although he may provide insults) >.....that's tod hard for Moron-y obviously..... Too hard for Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, anyway. >>>> Therefore it is silly to attribute to them (arbitrarily) a motion, >>>> just for the sake of doing so. >> Ralph, you can't be at rest relative to something like a flash/event >> which takes no time, and therefore doesn't have the property of motion. >What crap!....typical! I see you have no reason why it's "crap", Ralph. That's because there is no reason, Ralph. >>> Simple, eh? >> >> The problem is, if the description is simplified so much that even you can >> understand it, it becomes just plain wrong. >Simple.... but far too hard for mentally disabled mickey moron.... Too hard for Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who is mentally stuck on c+v and DirtyBaThWater, despite DirtyBaThWater being proven incorrect over and over and over again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 07:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oppe3h$19m1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432725 |
On 18/09/17 08:37, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Poor idiot! The flashes are meant to represent point events.
>
> Exactly, Henry.
>
>> Those points have locations and velocities in all frames.
>
> No, Henry, they have locations, but no velocities. Remember, an event in
> physics takes no time. It is a point in time as well as position. It
> cannot have a velocity because it simply does not make sense.
Events are always associated with objects. Those objects determine the speed of the events.
If you know of any events that are NOT associated with objects please let the world know.
> OK, Henry, let's use this as an example. The train and embankment both
> have rods sticking out, which make contact when the train passes. The
> train has one at each end. The flashes are caused when the train's rod
> touches the embankment rod when it passes. Understand, Henry? What is the
> velocity of the flash when the train rod touches the embankment rod?
> Give a valid reason for your answer. Remember the train rod is stationary
> relative to the train and the embankment rod is stationary relative to the
> embankment.
HAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! As Ken pointed out, if SR's claims are true, the flashes must be simultaneous in both frames....thus
refuting the RoS and rendering the whole of SR false. So if SR is true, then SR is false.
What does that tell you Moron-y?
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-18 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7991c049-8614-4ca4-ba6a-cb66c43234cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432821 |
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 2:33:42 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 18/09/17 08:37, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> Poor idiot! The flashes are meant to represent point events. > > > > Exactly, Henry. > > > >> Those points have locations and velocities in all frames. > > > > No, Henry, they have locations, but no velocities. Remember, an event in > > physics takes no time. It is a point in time as well as position. It > > cannot have a velocity because it simply does not make sense. > > Events are always associated with objects. Those objects determine the speed of the events. > If you know of any events that are NOT associated with objects please let the world know. > > > OK, Henry, let's use this as an example. The train and embankment both > > have rods sticking out, which make contact when the train passes. The > > train has one at each end. The flashes are caused when the train's rod > > touches the embankment rod when it passes. Understand, Henry? What is the > > velocity of the flash when the train rod touches the embankment rod? > > Give a valid reason for your answer. Remember the train rod is stationary > > relative to the train and the embankment rod is stationary relative to the > > embankment. > > HAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! As Ken pointed out, if SR's claims are true, the flashes must be simultaneous in both frames....thus > refuting the RoS and rendering the whole of SR false. So if SR is true, then SR is false. > What does that tell you Moron-y? > > > > -- > > HGW Rate for time order slows by gravity strength and motion. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-18 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2eced31-6590-4a9a-a8a5-f01964d1bc39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432823 |
mitchr...@gmail.com Rate for time order slows by gravity strength and motion. Mitchell Raemsch Fucking IMBECILIC CRETINOUS TURD !!!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-18 23:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oppl1d$gbr$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #432821 |
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <HW@home.net> writes: >On 18/09/17 08:37, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Poor idiot! The flashes are meant to represent point events. >> >> Exactly, Ralph. >> >>> Those points have locations and velocities in all frames. >> >> No, Ralph, they have locations, but no velocities. Remember, an event in >> physics takes no time. It is a point in time as well as position. It >> cannot have a velocity because it simply does not make sense. >Events are always associated with objects. Those objects determine the speed of the events. >If you know of any events that are NOT associated with objects please let the world know. >> OK, Ralph, let's use this as an example. The train and embankment both >> have rods sticking out, which make contact when the train passes. The >> train has one at each end. The flashes are caused when the train's rod >> touches the embankment rod when it passes. Understand, Ralph? What is the >> velocity of the flash when the train rod touches the embankment rod? >> Give a valid reason for your answer. Remember the train rod is stationary >> relative to the train and the embankment rod is stationary relative to the >> embankment. >HAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! As Ken pointed out, if SR's claims are true, the flashes must >be simultaneous in both frames....thus refuting the RoS and rendering the whole >of SR false. So if SR is true, then SR is false. I noticed you could not answer my question, Ralph. If events are always associated with an object, and therefore the object determines the speed of the events, what object is the speed of the flashes in my example determined by, Ralph? Remember, the events are the train rods contacting the embankment rods as the train passes. And Idiot Ken is, well, an idiot, he doesn't even understand SR. What he says SR's claims are is completely bogus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-19 11:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opps8d$1sn2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432833 |
On 19/09/17 09:31, Michael Moron-y wrote:
>
>> HAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! As Ken pointed out, if SR's claims are true, the flashes must
>> be simultaneous in both frames....thus refuting the RoS and rendering the whole
>> of SR false. So if SR is true, then SR is false.
>
> I noticed you could not answer my question, Henry. If events are always associated
> with an object, and therefore the object determines the speed of the events, what
> object is the speed of the flashes in my example determined by, Henry?
Poor little mickey moron doesn't know that light is emitted during disturbances to atomic and molecular bonds. They are
the sources of light from lightning flashes, which ionize molecules along their paths. At hte instant the flashes hit
the train or track, the actual sources would be moving at slightly different speeds and so would light from the flashes
as it moved towards the two observers.
Remember,
> the events are the train rods contacting the embankment rods as the train passes.
>
> And Idiot Ken is, well, an idiot, he doesn't even understand SR. What he says SR's
> claims are is completely bogus.
Ken is a lot smarter than any dingleberry here. If he didn't cling to his version of aether, he might achieve something.
Whether he was aware of it or not, Ken exposed a mammoth logical flaw in SR's very foundations. If SR is true, then the
RoS is wrong and SR must be false. What better proof of Einsteinian imbecility can one get?
Gehan understands it perfectly well but it would be far too hard for you.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-18 20:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <daf22a6a-39c2-436e-9822-3e39ef1ab9c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432843 |
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 7:05:15 AM UTC+5:30, HGW wrote: > On 19/09/17 09:31, Michael Moron-y wrote: > > > > >> HAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! As Ken pointed out, if SR's claims are true, the flashes must > >> be simultaneous in both frames....thus refuting the RoS and rendering the whole > >> of SR false. So if SR is true, then SR is false. > > What we need here is a framework for discussing these issues, the starting assumptions, for example if we are assuming the existence of an ether, ballistic light propagation or something else. Need a new topic here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web