Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616141 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-27 19:27 +0200 |
| Last post | 2023-08-23 09:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 392 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 19:27 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 11:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-27 12:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 23:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 00:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-28 07:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 08:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 13:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-28 09:47 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-27 22:59 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-27 16:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-28 13:33 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-28 05:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 02:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 11:23 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 04:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 12:39 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 05:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 21:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 09:36 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 02:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 09:18 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 06:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-31 15:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 16:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 05:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 06:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 07:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 09:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 12:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 19:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 10:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 12:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 19:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-02 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 04:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 05:15 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-02 10:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 12:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 04:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 04:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 05:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 06:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 16:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 18:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 19:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 03:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 03:30 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 06:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 14:24 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 06:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 10:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 12:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-04 12:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 16:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-04 16:28 +0300
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 09:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 12:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 23:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-08 13:44 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 20:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 21:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-09 06:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 22:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 00:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-10 02:00 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 18:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-07-29 20:06 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-14 09:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 12:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-15 11:20 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 18:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-16 15:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 09:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 00:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 13:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 12:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:41 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 20:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 02:31 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 02:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 04:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 09:48 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 07:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 23:37 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 03:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 04:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 22:06 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 15:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-02 11:51 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 09:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 09:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 10:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-02 12:08 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 04:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 07:40 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 17:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 19:44 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 19:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:56 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-04 21:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 14:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 21:12 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 22:51 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 22:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 10:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-03 15:05 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 23:17 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-02 23:24 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 16:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-08-03 21:16 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 22:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 12:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mechael Hazeev <llee@hmelvave.ah> - 2023-07-31 20:23 +0000
From Russia With (was Re: Dunning-Kruger examples) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 18:38 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 13:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 14:51 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:07 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 02:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:59 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 08:29 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 08:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 16:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-05 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 01:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 09:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-05 10:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 12:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-05 21:23 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-06 05:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 07:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-06 21:17 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-07 10:29 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 01:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 12:02 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 20:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-12 10:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 17:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 02:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-12 17:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 21:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 01:31 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-13 11:23 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 09:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 10:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 05:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 08:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 09:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 11:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 12:30 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 16:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 19:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 21:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 02:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 12:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 16:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 02:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-17 02:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 22:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 02:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 05:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 10:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 17:13 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-17 05:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 01:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 17:46 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 01:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 04:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 04:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 12:31 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 21:35 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-20 04:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 05:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 09:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 06:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 16:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 05:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 07:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 18:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 05:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 00:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 16:19 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 08:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 10:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 16:40 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 16:55 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 15:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 20:08 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:38 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 11:29 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-24 15:02 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 20:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 22:30 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 22:58 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 20:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-25 15:58 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 15:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-25 16:07 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 04:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-26 14:41 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 04:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 04:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 05:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 06:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-26 12:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 05:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 01:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:18 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 09:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-26 22:19 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:10 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 01:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-25 15:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:40 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 02:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 22:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Edgardo Yudelevich <edal@ouoygerr.cu> - 2023-08-26 21:41 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 20:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:46 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 20:20 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:32 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 23:04 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-25 21:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:41 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 11:26 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 23:06 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 02:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 12:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 04:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 04:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 02:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:02 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 04:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 12:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 01:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:00 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 15:40 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 22:58 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:22 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-23 01:47 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Brouce Vil <ibiu@bculrlcu.oc> - 2023-08-23 21:55 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 17:33 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mechael Pazi <pphe@lmhecacz.ha> - 2023-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Osvani Dobronos <dsio@iaboroor.ov> - 2023-08-18 22:07 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 07:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 12:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 10:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 01:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 05:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 15:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 21:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 22:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 01:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 02:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 03:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 03:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 04:07 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 04:15 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 04:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 05:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-16 15:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 16:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 15:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-19 12:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-20 04:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 04:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 14:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 04:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 17:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-07 13:50 +0300
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 03:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-31 09:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 13:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-02 15:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 17:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-04 16:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 17:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 01:10 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Hershel Awtomovitch <ecwt@timhaheo.et> - 2023-07-28 12:38 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 11:00 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 12:39 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 05:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-29 11:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:08 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 08:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Stefhen Hanok <ttsk@asskohan.fn> - 2023-08-23 09:01 +0000
Page 17 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 22:58 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn |
| Message-ID | <1qfvwhi.1smemg0etldjhN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618578 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 8/19/2023 7:50 AM, Lou wrote: > > > Anyways, I understand your problem. To discredit emission theory you > > need an imaginary force to make light slow down, speed up,and wobble > > in the source frame. > > That's the disproof of the emission theory. If emission theory was true, > light from different source frames would arrive at the destination with > different speeds (c+v, variable v) and would bunch up and smear and > observations would be a total mess. But that doesn't happen. Because all > light travels at c, we see the stars orbiting just as they did X light > years ago. > > > But where did you get this force from? Star Wars? > > But that came out in 1976.!? Decades after deSitters 1913 fantasy novel. > > Then I did a bit checking and found out where he got his magic force: > > 'Edgar Rice Burroughs Princess of Mars' had just been published in 1912! > > ( You know. The imaginary force that transported John Carter to Mars) > > Where is your evidence deSitter got anything from Burroughs' books? Now that would have been unlikely indeed. De Sitter was a full profesor in astronomy in Leyden at the time. He would not have known about silly serials in cheap American pulp magazines. (Princes of Mars wasn't published in book form until several years later, and even the books would not have been available in the Netherlands) This 'Lou' is getting crazier al the time, Jan BTW, Leyden, with Lorentz, Ehrenfest, and De Sitter was a hotspot of gravity research in those years. They were joined in 1916 by Nordvedt, but by then Einstein had taken it all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 00:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubpg1h$ka05$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618125 |
On 8/18/2023 7:49 AM, Lou wrote: > On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 03:33:42 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 8/17/2023 8:28 AM, Lou wrote: >>> The excuse in the article is that far from being stopped by hydrogen, new >>> imaginary intermediate particles are created by these collisions. >>> Called “neutral pions” . >> Again you obviously didn't read the paper's references. Neutral pions >> were well known before that time and weren't invented for this paper. >> They were discovered in 1950. > > This is a false claim. They can’t be observed directly as particle paths. > Only G rays are observed from collisions of cosmic rays in atmosphere. > So as wiki says...these imaginary neutral pions were “inferred”. > Ie...made up to try to explain why the standard model could not explain > the fact that atoms, like H, could emit gammarays when hit by hi > energy protons. And proof of the standard models complete lack of > ability to model anything except for hi paid CERN staff salaries comes in the > observation that H atoms in the sun emit far more g rays then predicted > under the Standard Model. No, they were well known, discovered in 1950. You are imagining conspiracy theories (can't model anything but CERN staff salaries). And unless these solar gammas are 62.5 MeV and in pairs, they are irrelevant. > Yes Volney. But only if you ignore the fact that the H2 atoms in Filipas > can also produce the same g rays. No, they can't. > At c in the experiment frame. The decay gammas are at c in the pion frame (all frames, for that matter).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 00:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2c3796f-cf8d-4a5e-aa74-bcb7a4b42fb8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618222 |
On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 05:22:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 8/18/2023 7:49 AM, Lou wrote: > > On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 03:33:42 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/17/2023 8:28 AM, Lou wrote: > > >>> The excuse in the article is that far from being stopped by hydrogen, new > >>> imaginary intermediate particles are created by these collisions. > >>> Called “neutral pions” . > > >> Again you obviously didn't read the paper's references. Neutral pions > >> were well known before that time and weren't invented for this paper. > >> They were discovered in 1950. > > > > This is a false claim. They can’t be observed directly as particle paths. > > Only G rays are observed from collisions of cosmic rays in atmosphere. > > So as wiki says...these imaginary neutral pions were “inferred”. > > Ie...made up to try to explain why the standard model could not explain > > the fact that atoms, like H, could emit gammarays when hit by hi > > energy protons. And proof of the standard models complete lack of > > ability to model anything except for hi paid CERN staff salaries comes in the > > observation that H atoms in the sun emit far more g rays then predicted > > under the Standard Model. > No, they were well known, discovered in 1950. You are imagining Wrong. They were not discovered. Gammaray rays were observed emitted from atoms in the atmosphere being hit by cosmic rays and emitting g rays. The standard model couldn’t explain how atoms including H atoms could emit hi energy radiation . So imaginary neutral pions were invented to save another failure yet again, of the standard model. > conspiracy theories (can't model anything but CERN staff salaries). And > unless these solar gammas are 62.5 MeV and in pairs, they are irrelevant. > > Yes Volney. But only if you ignore the fact that the H2 atoms in Filipas > > can also produce the same g rays. > No, they can't. > > At c in the experiment frame. > The decay gammas are at c in the pion frame (all frames, for that matter).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 01:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc46gr$2qakj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618239 |
On 8/19/2023 3:39 AM, Lou wrote: > On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 05:22:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 8/18/2023 7:49 AM, Lou wrote: >>> On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 03:33:42 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/17/2023 8:28 AM, Lou wrote: >> >>>>> The excuse in the article is that far from being stopped by hydrogen, new >>>>> imaginary intermediate particles are created by these collisions. >>>>> Called “neutral pions” . >> >>>> Again you obviously didn't read the paper's references. Neutral pions >>>> were well known before that time and weren't invented for this paper. >>>> They were discovered in 1950. >>> >>> This is a false claim. They can’t be observed directly as particle paths. >>> Only G rays are observed from collisions of cosmic rays in atmosphere. >>> So as wiki says...these imaginary neutral pions were “inferred”. >>> Ie...made up to try to explain why the standard model could not explain >>> the fact that atoms, like H, could emit gammarays when hit by hi >>> energy protons. And proof of the standard models complete lack of >>> ability to model anything except for hi paid CERN staff salaries comes in the >>> observation that H atoms in the sun emit far more g rays then predicted >>> under the Standard Model. >> No, they were well known, discovered in 1950. You are imagining > > > Wrong. They were not discovered. They most certainly were discovered, in 1950. They are also known from rare decays (e+e-γ I think) and things which can decay into π⁰. Burying your head in the sand and chanting "there are no neutral pions" isn't going to make them go away. > Gammaray rays were observed emitted > from atoms in the atmosphere being hit by cosmic rays and emitting g rays. And once again you ignore the fact that π⁰ decays into two gammas of a specific energy. Not any old gammas, but a pair of back to back 62.5 MeV gammas. You keep ignoring that (on purpose, of course). > The standard model couldn’t explain how atoms including H atoms could > emit hi energy radiation . The standard model explains π⁰ just fine. > So imaginary neutral pions were invented to save another failure > yet again, of the standard model. Nope. They were discovered before the standard model existed. Pions (all three types) were predicted by the Yukawa theory of nuclear force. The charged mesons were discovered in 1947, the neutral one was more difficult to detect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brouce Vil <ibiu@bculrlcu.oc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 21:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc5v7v$340hr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618638 |
Volney wrote:
>> Wrong. They were not discovered.
> They most certainly were discovered, in 1950.
> They are also known from rare decays (e+e-γ I think) and things which
> can decay into π⁰. Burying your head in the sand and chanting "there are
> no neutral pions" isn't going to make them go away.
epic. Col 𝗗𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀_𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿 about the corrupt gay actor
{{{𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆}}} will soon be living in Florida, crappy american tanks,
satellites, lying massmedia, AI etc.
𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗖𝗢𝗟_𝗗𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗟𝗔𝗦_𝗠𝗔𝗖𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗢𝗥_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗨𝗞𝗥𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗘_𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗧_𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗪_𝗜𝗦_𝗕𝗟𝗢𝗪𝗜𝗡𝗚_𝗨𝗣
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/aAepsLlrZ5WD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 17:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uc61gc$fasp$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #618718 |
On 8/23/2023 4:55 PM, Brouce Vil wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>>> Wrong. They were not discovered.
>> They most certainly were discovered, in 1950.
>> They are also known from rare decays (e+e-γ I think) and things which
>> can decay into π⁰. Burying your head in the sand and chanting "there are
>> no neutral pions" isn't going to make them go away.
>
> epic. Col 𝗗𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀_𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿 about the corrupt gay actor
> {{{𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆}}} will soon be living in Florida, crappy american tanks,
> satellites, lying massmedia, AI etc.
>
> 𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗖𝗢𝗟_𝗗𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗟𝗔𝗦_𝗠𝗔𝗖𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗢𝗥_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗨𝗞𝗥𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗘_𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗧_𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗪_𝗜𝗦_𝗕𝗟𝗢𝗪𝗜𝗡𝗚_𝗨𝗣
> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/aAepsLlrZ5WD
Hanson, you crazy son of a bitch. Exercise a little more tact so
everybody wouldn't so easily know you and Vulva are one and the same
person. If you keep quoting Vulva in this forum all the time you're
going to blow your cover!
Lunatic fuck.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mechael Pazi <pphe@lmhecacz.ha> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ubqi0a$rff5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618222 |
Volney wrote:
> No, they were well known, discovered in 1950. You are imagining
> conspiracy theories (can't model anything but CERN staff salaries). And
> unless these solar gammas are 62.5 MeV and in pairs, they are
> irrelevant.
here you have it. America is a shithole, driven by 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 with
changed names. {{{𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆}}} want it all. Yet another proof.
𝗗𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀_𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿_𝗛𝗮𝘀_𝗔_𝗠𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲_-_𝗦𝗲𝘁_𝗧𝗼_𝗟𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲_𝗢𝗳_𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲_𝗞𝗶𝗻𝗱
https://bit%63%68ute.com/video/b2Kd5LQsBwXM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Osvani Dobronos <dsio@iaboroor.ov> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-18 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uboq31$d5aq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618084 |
Volney wrote: > Did you read the references in the paper? I'm sure there are a few > references to the generation of neutral pions, something which was well > understood by the time of the paper. Since neutral pions have mass > similar to negative pions, I'm sure a big part of the answer is > conservation of momentum, like with pool balls. that's nazism. This is it. Capitalism, fascism and nazism 𝐚𝐫𝐞_𝐭𝐡𝐞_𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞_𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, nazism. I always know 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞_𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬_𝐚𝐫𝐞_𝐚𝐥𝐥_𝐧𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐬𝐦. It boils down to how fast and how evil they kill you. 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲_𝐧𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐬𝐦. That's capitalist america, right now, as we speak. 𝐑𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞_“𝐈_𝐖𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫_𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞_𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲_𝐀𝐫𝐞_𝐆𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠_𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞_𝐂𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐬_𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲_𝐀𝐫𝐞_𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠_𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐨_𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐭” https://bit%63%68ute.com/video/0REqUQW1Gefc 𝐇𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫_𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧_𝐚𝐧𝐝_𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐧_𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥_𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧_𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭_𝐢𝐧_𝐔𝐤𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞 https://bit%63%68ute.com/video/MWBjqbsKi7gv 𝐔𝐒_𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬_𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞_𝐙𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐤𝐲_𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞_𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲_𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭_𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦_𝐰𝐚𝐫 - Lukashenko https://bit%63%68ute.com/video/dp52MWwgM80Z
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1502bcb1-c2c6-4711-ac03-661deb7d5cabn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617886 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:28:58 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > [-] > > How about experiments like Alvager et al.? Because of conservation > > laws, the pions generated by protons impinging on a fixed target travel > > at 99.999+ of the speed of light, mostly in the same direction as the > > incident proton pulses. The neutral pions decay almost instantaneously > > to a pair of gamma rays, which because of conservation laws travel > > mostly in the same direction as the decaying pions. > Not quite. It isn't conservation laws, > it is relativistic kinematics. I intentionally avoided using the word "relativistic" which is total anathema to Lou and causes his brain to shut down. In any event, relativistic kinematics assumes the conservation of four-momentum. > The photons are of course emitted isotropically in the pion rest frame. > The Lorentz transform then shrinks the forward half-sphere > (in the rest frame) into a narrow forward cone. (in the lab frame) That is what I meant by "mostly in the same direction". I certainly didn't mean "exactly" in the same direction, but rather that the photons are strongly beamed in the forwards direction. > But Alvager et al. only detect photons that have gone precisely in the > forward directlion. Of course. > The other photon goes backwards, and is not seen. > > Direct measurement of the time of travel of the gamma pulses between > > separated detectors yields c to the limits of measurement accuracy. > Yes. (but also not quite) > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 10:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qflotr.14d51zn1qpy3nkN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #617949 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>: > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:28:58?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > [-] > > > How about experiments like Alvager et al.? Because of conservation > > > laws, the pions generated by protons impinging on a fixed target travel > > > at 99.999+ of the speed of light, mostly in the same direction as the > > > incident proton pulses. The neutral pions decay almost instantaneously > > > to a pair of gamma rays, which because of conservation laws travel > > > mostly in the same direction as the decaying pions. > > Not quite. It isn't conservation laws, > > it is relativistic kinematics. > > I intentionally avoided using the word "relativistic" which > is total anathema to Lou and causes his brain to shut down. > > In any event, relativistic kinematics assumes the conservation > of four-momentum. Beg to disagree. Nothing but the Lorentz transform is involved, so purely kinematics. But yes, if you insist, you can claim that the pion disintegrating into two photons that go off in opposite directions with equal energies is dictated by the conservation law. (all in its rest frame) > > The photons are of course emitted isotropically in the pion rest frame. > > The Lorentz transform then shrinks the forward half-sphere > > (in the rest frame) into a narrow forward cone. (in the lab frame) > > That is what I meant by "mostly in the same direction". I > certainly didn't mean "exactly" in the same direction, but > rather that the photons are strongly beamed in the > forwards direction. > > > But Alvager et al. only detect photons that have gone precisely in the > > forward directlion. > > Of course. Well, yes, but if you really insist you can smuggle a bit. You will also see photons from pions that have not gone precisely in the forward direction, with the photon also being slightly off, to arrive just right. One easily verifies that this is a second order effect that doesn't influence the final result, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 07:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50c1befe-7f10-4111-b108-281507579359n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617766 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:56 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > But that’s irrelevent anyways. Because those experiments aren’t testing > to see if there are constant isotropic speeds in a *rotating* frame. Whacko, The coordinate speed of light is not isotropic in either accelerated frames or in rotating frames. This has been known for over 100 years. The proper speed of light is isotropic in either of the above cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c72235a-ebbb-47ff-9bb1-674b7b23f844n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617774 |
On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 16:58:13 UTC+2, Dono. wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:56 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > But that’s irrelevent anyways. Because those experiments aren’t testing > > to see if there are constant isotropic speeds in a *rotating* frame. > Whacko, > > The coordinate speed of light is not isotropic in either accelerated frames or in rotating frames. And, as "gravity and acceleration are equivalent" - everywhere else, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61115c41-ad51-4d7b-bf57-69794078f923n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617775 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:34:52 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 16:58:13 UTC+2, Dono. wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:56 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > But that’s irrelevent anyways. Because those experiments aren’t testing > > > to see if there are constant isotropic speeds in a *rotating* frame. > > Whacko, > > > > The coordinate speed of light is not isotropic in either accelerated frames or in rotating frames. > And, as "gravity and acceleration are equivalent" Janitor You are supposed to empty the latrines, yet you continue to eat out of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dee3aeab-7812-4e8c-ae3b-4fda437a6809n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617774 |
On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 15:58:13 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:56 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > But that’s irrelevent anyways. Because those experiments aren’t testing > > to see if there are constant isotropic speeds in a *rotating* frame. > Whacko, > > The coordinate speed of light is not isotropic in either accelerated frames or in rotating frames. This has been known for over 100 years. > The proper speed of light is isotropic in either of the above cases. If you read the bible..yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2625a335-16cf-4777-b7b7-d0105d8c9407n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617810 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 15:58:13 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:56 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > But that’s irrelevent anyways. Because those experiments aren’t testing > > > to see if there are constant isotropic speeds in a *rotating* frame. > > Whacko, > > > > The coordinate speed of light is not isotropic in either accelerated frames or in rotating frames. This has been known for over 100 years. > > The proper speed of light is isotropic in either of the above cases. > If you read the bible..yes. More like if you want to remain an imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df50696f-b563-47cc-b4be-89fa87c14a38n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617814 |
On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 20:05:48 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 15:58:13 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:56 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > > > But that’s irrelevent anyways. Because those experiments aren’t testing > > > > to see if there are constant isotropic speeds in a *rotating* frame. > > > Whacko, > > > > > > The coordinate speed of light is not isotropic in either accelerated frames or in rotating frames. This has been known for over 100 years. > > > The proper speed of light is isotropic in either of the above cases. > > If you read the bible..yes. > More like if you want to remain an imbecile. Really? Funny that. I’m talking about emission theory. And you thought I was referring to SR?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7eb6248-b816-4b81-aa75-ef0f69b31aaen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617816 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 20:05:48 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 15:58:13 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:56 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > > > > > But that’s irrelevent anyways. Because those experiments aren’t testing > > > > > to see if there are constant isotropic speeds in a *rotating* frame. > > > > Whacko, > > > > > > > > The coordinate speed of light is not isotropic in either accelerated frames or in rotating frames. This has been known for over 100 years. > > > > The proper speed of light is isotropic in either of the above cases. > > > If you read the bible..yes. > > More like if you want to remain an imbecile. > Really? Funny that. I’m talking about emission theory. > And you thought I was referring to SR? Dumbfuck, I am talking about the physical reality. Keep basking in your imbecility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 10:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfido4.k7ya071e06s5uN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #617764 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com [-] > It does not model direct and/or differential measurements of the > speed of light emitted from moving sources, which have been > conducted many times over the last century, with moving sources > traveling at speeds up to 99.999+ percent of the speed of light. Correct. Dependence of the speed of light on the speed of the source has been falsified to great accuracy, and also for relativistic sources. > Experimentally, the vacuum speed of light is observed to be c in > all frames. Complete nonsense. You really should get up to date. The (vacuum) speed of light is defined to be 299,792,458 m/s. Period. Frames don't come into it. Think about it: how could you possibly 'observe' the speed of light in a spaceship that zooms by at relativistic velocity? (if you can't allow yourself to Lorentz transform to calculate it) What you -can- observe, at least in principle, is the following: Tell those LGM zooming by what our definition of the meter is. (distance light travels, one of our seconds is, tadadada) Ask them to produce a platinum rod that is precisely one meter long. Next let them stop, and compare their rod to one of ours. Is there anyone here who thinks that the two rods will differ in length? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 01:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6488d57-7042-4062-bfbd-75ec76e25450n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617885 |
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 10:28:57 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com > [-] > > It does not model direct and/or differential measurements of the > > speed of light emitted from moving sources, which have been > > conducted many times over the last century, with moving sources > > traveling at speeds up to 99.999+ percent of the speed of light. > Correct. Dependence of the speed of light on the speed of the source > has been falsified to great accuracy, and also for relativistic sources. > > Experimentally, the vacuum speed of light is observed to be c in > > all frames. > Complete nonsense. You really should get up to date. > The (vacuum) speed of light is defined to be 299,792,458 m/s. Period. > Frames don't come into it. Complete nonsense. You really should get up to date. Even in your moronic Shit it only applies in inertial frames - nowhere. Period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 05:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe98cb45-680f-42fc-ba43-809b250098a4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617749 |
On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 06:28:35 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 9:06:41 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > Yes Bill. I understand your problem. You think that it is utterly absurd > > that light travels at constant speeds isotropically relative to the MMX > > source as it rotates around the earths axis and gives a negative result. > > Oh and let me guess... because this is consistent with an emission model > > that also predicts light should travel at constant speeds relative to its > > source regardless of the sources motion relative to any other frame... > Emission theories generically state that light is emitted with > a constant speed c relative to the motion of its source AT THE > MOMENT THAT THE LIGHT IS BEING EMITTED. > > Your absurd variant of emission theory was developed specifically > to "explain away" de Sitter's observation that light from double > stars does not show bizarre effects due to fast light overtaking > slow light. > > However, emission theory predicts other observations that are > not observed. For example, consider the Hubble deep fields. You > are undoubtedly familiar with these breathtakingly beautiful > photos, taken over many days of exposure time (up to 22 days of > exposure over 50 days of observation). If the light from the > different galaxies (and occasional star) in these photos arrived > at the camera at different speeds, then they should have shown > differing amounts of aberration as the Hubble orbited around > the Earth, and the photos should have been horribly ugly smears > of objects traversing different "Bradley ellipses". > > The photos are not horribly ugly smears. I did point out to Bill that this ether free emission model predicts that the farther away the galaxy, the more the effects of this model will distort th images of the galaxy. Is it not true that recent JWST data has shown that the greater the redshift, the more distorted the galaxies appear in the observations made by JWST? Seeing as that is what observed isn’t that called a successful theoretical prediction? Anyways Inwould like to add a few extra points to my last post to you which I would like to see if you can give a rational response to. Because so far none of you have really made any logical sense when criticising this emission model. First of all you say it’s against the laws of physics. What law? I don’t see any law specifically stating a rotating source cannot have light propagating at constant speeds isotropically relative to the source. Unless you refer to assumptions from ether based theories or SR? But those are not laws of physics. Those are theoretical models. And you should know by now that you can’t use theoretical assumptions from one model to refute another competing model. Secondly you all seem to ignore the fact that this emission model does correctly predict no pile ups in double starlight, MMX results and observations made in many other experiments like Sagnac and lunar ranging etc. So under the rules Im used to the fact that a theories predictions are consistent with observations validates a theory. Not invalidate it. And thirdly, going back to your contention that this instantaneous action at a distance Im pointing out as a feature of the ether free emission model you say is impossible under current physics.!? What rationale are you using to jump to this conclusion? Because under Classical Newtonian physics you already accept that gravity can propagate instantaneously over great cosmological distances. If this is acceptable then why not the electromagnetic field of an atom? After all you wouldn’t object to me saying under classical physics I can pick up a stone and shake it back and forth. And instantaneously induce a gravitational effect on the mass of a nearby star. Why can’t the same laws That allow this, allow an atoms electromagnetic field to have the same properties? Not to mention QT spooky action at a distance that Einstein himself objected to. Doesnt that instantaneous effect contravene the same laws of physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web