Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #741665
| Subject | Re: energy and mass |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design |
| References | (19 earlier) <tNOcnfrSHZqTajf0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <BqWcnTDwgMuTuSv0nZ2dnZfqnPpg4p2d@giganews.com> <10p5fb3$r5l9$5@dont-email.me> <10p6l4v$177r3$1@dont-email.me> <xe-dnSe4p-whfSv0nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
| Date | 2026-03-15 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <RNqdnQzmB-_2eSv0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 03/15/2026 09:39 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/15/2026 09:01 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >> On 3/15/26 06:16, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On 15/03/2026 2:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2026 07:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely physical constant? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of the latest revision of the SI, Boltzmann's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just another conversion factor between units. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no longer any physical content to it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mile, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boltzmann constant is in the little leaflet in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every book on thermodynamics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Often it's the only "physical constant" given. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The SI units are much separated from the relevant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical domains these days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, "defining" the second as about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cesium atom its hyperfine transition, and "defining" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meter as that according to the "defined" speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of light, results all that's defined not derived, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the System Internationale units that we all know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and love simply don't say much about the objective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality of the quantities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing that you have the wit to understand? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The are a lot of steps between the optical spectrum of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cloud of cesium >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms and the frequency of an oscillator running slowly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough for you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be able to count transitions, but there is no question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective reality of every last one of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eh, the basis for the SI is the defined value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a -microwave- frequency of the Cesium atom. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From an engineering point of view a Cesium clock >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is nothing but a stabilised quartz clock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That "nothing but" ignores the fact that the output of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cesium clock >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a much more stable frequency than the outputs of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quartz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks. That's why people pay more money for them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, it is a stibilised quartz clock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you were proud of being an engineer, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I adapted the description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optical frequency standards do exist, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as Strontium lattice 'clocks' for example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but so far they are frequecy standards only, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not yet clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_lattice_clock >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said, they are called 'clocks' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but for the time being they are only frequency standards. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (precisely because they cannot be used yet to stabilise a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quartz clock) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The process of turning a frequency standard into a clock is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated but the devices are already sold as clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From an engineering point of view that is just being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time is a universal parameter of most theories of mechanics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the useful ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But time must be a LOCAL parameter ONLY! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is total bunk to assume, that an 'external' clock would >>>>>>>>>>>>> exist, which synchronizes everything in the universe. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Clocks don't exist to synchronise anything. They can be part >>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>> local system which synchronises some local action to an event >>>>>>>>>>>> which has been observed from that location. Granting the >>>>>>>>>>>> bulk of >>>>>>>>>>>> the universe is expanding away from any given point at a speed >>>>>>>>>>>> which is increase with time and distance time dilation alone >>>>>>>>>>>> makes the idea of perfect synchronicity untenable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If nothing synchronizes remote systems, then how could we >>>>>>>>>>> rightfully assume, that remote systems share the same time? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's a very convenient assumption.The big bang theory has the >>>>>>>>>> universe starting to expand from a very small point some 13.8 >>>>>>>>>> billion years ago, and what we can see of the observable universe >>>>>>>>>> is consistent with that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure, it's convenient. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But is it actually true??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We don't seem to need a different explanation at this point. >>>>>>>> If eventually make some observations that are inconsistent with the >>>>>>>> theory, we'll start looking for a better one, but the big gbang >>>>>>>> theory seems to be true enough for all current practical purposes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nature does not care about what we need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nature is as nature is, whether we like it or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Big bang theory suffers from a 'little' problem: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> how would you actually create a universe from nothing? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody said anything about creating it from nothing. The point >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> the theory is that it starts off with a large lump of >>>>>>>> undifferentiated mass- energy that doesn't have any structure that >>>>>>>> links it back to a preceding structure. The early stages of its >>>>>>>> development seem to have been pretty well randomised, and if the >>>>>>>> mechanism that created initial the lump of mass energy was merely >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> collapse of a previously existing universe we'd end up with >>>>>>>> essential;ly the same theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My own approach was, that time is local and space is 'relative'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To get such a behavior I have searched for something, which would >>>>>>> allow such behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is actually possible, if you think about a certain type of >>>>>>> complex numbers and a connection between them, which is also >>>>>>> known as >>>>>>> certain type of geometric algebra. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, we need a system, which allows an imaginary time 'axis' at >>>>>>> every >>>>>>> point and a realm perpendicular, which we could call time-like. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The result of my search was a system called 'cliiford algebra Cl_3' >>>>>>> and something called 'complex four vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions'). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now we have a point, to which a certain axis of time belongs, where >>>>>>> the observer is located. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The observer chooses, of cause, the axis of time, in respect to >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> he himself is stable and a material body. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then we have a perpendicular 'hyper-sheet of the present' and in >>>>>>> between the past light cone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The past light cone is what the observer could see, especially in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> night sky. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The interesting part is, that we can 'rotate' the axis of time and >>>>>>> declare stability to an axis of time perpendicular or in opposite >>>>>>> direction to the previous one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now we can assume, that both are possible and that both coexist at >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> same place, while unrecognized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The 'other timelines' define also matter and also a real universe, >>>>>>> which is entirely hidden from sight by the observer mentioned above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is invisible, but real. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Far better is actually my own approach, which goes like this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I take the 'big bang' as case of a 'white hole'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (That is 'the other side' of a 'black hole'.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This 'white hole' spreads out and creates, what we call 'universe' >>>>>>>>> in which we as human beings live on planet Earth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But 'universe' isn't universal at all and the timeline from big >>>>>>>>> bang >>>>>>>>> to us isn't the only timeline possible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But since we can't observe any of these other universes it is a >>>>>>>> complete waste of time to speculate about their possible existence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Our past is just one of an infinite number of possible timelines, >>>>>>>>> which all connect a big bang with something much later. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But you need to find a mechanism that lets you explore these other >>>>>>>> timelines before anybody is going to take you seriously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Invisible realms cannot be explored. It it also difficult to enter >>>>>>> such realms, because we are bound to our own 'axis of stability'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be extremely dangerous to leave a certain realm, in >>>>>>> which we >>>>>>> share the same axis of time with the environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> If an invisible realm cannot be explored, which implies that it's >>>>>> inhabitants can't explore ours, there's not a lot of point in >>>>>> speculating about it's potential existence. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is more like a HUGE clock with one hand only, that circles >>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>> every ten billion years or so. This 'hand' moves slowly forewards >>>>>>>>> and creates new universes every time it moves. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you want to imagine something like that, feel free, but don't >>>>>>>> expect anybody else to be interested. You won't get any research >>>>>>>> grants to support any work you might want to put in to make the >>>>>>>> idea >>>>>>>> sound less half-witted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I personally think, that this idea of mine is already known >>>>>>> since ages, but hidden from the public, because it would allow >>>>>>> several >>>>>>> things, out of which huge profits could be generated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like every other goofy sucker for conspiracy theories. >>>>>> >>>>>>> (like e.g. transmutation or time-travel) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But possibly this isn't known. >>>>>> >>>>>> Almost certainly, there isn't anything there to know, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Would be better, but actually I don't know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyhow, in case you are interested, here is my 'book' about this >>>>>>> concept: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's now 16 years old and today I would write something different. >>>>>>> But >>>>>>> it's quite ok, anyhow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your idea of what might be ok isn't one that many sane people would >>>>>> share. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now new universes need new stars and those new planet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They might, if they existed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This causes what also regard as true: Growing Earth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The earth doesn't seem to be growing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Earth seemingly grows! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is another story, where the stories told to the public >>>>>>> apparently >>>>>>> differ from reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To understand 'Growing Earth' is quite difficult, because the few >>>>>>> books about this theory were systematically removed from public >>>>>>> eyes. >>>>>> >>>>>> It also conflicts with the concept of the conservation of >>>>>> mass-energy, >>>>>> which underpins modern physics, and modern physics works remarkably >>>>>> well. >>>>>> >>>>>>> But one book from Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg called 'Vom wachsenden >>>>>>> Erdball' is still available online (for free!), but is only >>>>>>> available >>>>>>> in German. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a pretty much infinite stock of total nonsense available in >>>>>> print. I have no intention of digging out any of it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There was this one fellow on sci.physics, a regular, years ago, >>>>> who had a similar sort of idea: to basically reflect that >>>>> after the Big Bang hypothesis made for Inflationary Cosmology >>>>> and Expanding Universe, to basically make "Growing Earth" >>>>> as "Balanced Bang", in this sense, the _idea_ itself is >>>>> not really different from other notions of "severe abstractions" >>>>> of "complementary duals", like for example Lagrange's "severe >>>>> abstraction" about energy and Lagrange's "complementary dual" >>>>> about potentials. >>>>> >>>>> I.e., as an idea, it's a thing. >>>>> >>>>> These days, since 2MASS made for an account of that redshift bias >>>>> exists, and, then that JWST has roundly paintcanned ye olde >>>>> "Expanding Universe", i.e. the entire idea that the data after >>>>> Lemaitre and Hubble gave is right out the window, then figuring >>>>> out _why_ and _how_ this can be explained, sort of has an inverse >>>>> to model or "complementary dual", as to why the idea itself of >>>>> something like "Growing Earth" isn't more odd than "Big Bang". >>>>> >>>>> Kind of like "Steady State" and "Frozen State" or along those >>>>> lines, again the "severe abstraction" or "abstraction" on reasoning >>>>> about universals, naturally enough makes a place for "space >>>>> inversion". >>>>> >>>>> Since modern methods in the sky survey like 2MASS and now JWST have >>>>> really roundly paint-canned Expanding Universe and thus also about >>>>> Inflationary Cosmology, has that "Hubble Tension" is actually >>>>> quite more pronounced than what usual people think, to the point >>>>> of being "absolutely Hubble tense". >>>> >>>> It's becoming more usual now that accounts of "redshift distortion" >>>> are making for an entire new table of values in the data to help >>>> start sorting out which of the old values were off 100%. >>> >>> Red-shift is deduced from spectral lines. That isn't going to be "100% >>> off". If it is then treated as a purely Doppler shift, and something >>> else is also affecting the observed wavelength, the recession >>> velocities deduced from the spectral shift may be wrong. >>> >> >> >> Another mmmh. Red shift for far, far-away galaxies is estimated by >> colorimetry, because there are no recognizable spectral lines. That >> opens up a huge can of worms. >> >> Jeroen Belleman > > Spectrometry itself has plenty of worms. > > Since Newton after thinkers like DesCartes who computed the > arc en ciel or rainbow its spectrum, are notions of, > "second spectrum", besides the fact that a _spectrum_ > is quite usually a _continuum_, about spectra, > "spectral _lines_", and spectroscopy. > > So, Newton's "second spectrum" is more-than-less an > immediate attachment about additive and subtractive > colors, since _filters_ and _pigments_ essentially > act in two different ways, about usual notions of > a "tristimulus color-space", and, here that there's > a notion of at least a, "dual tri-stimulus color-space". > > Then, besides Newton's "second spectrum", are at least > three different kinds of visible radiation: incandescence > (mostly about warm, red light), flourescence (ionized plasmas), > and phosphorescence (the nuclear's). > > Then, besides each these having accounts of "second spectra", > and about things like the Lyman account, there's that since > Rayleigh-Jeans went to Zeeman to quell the _continuous_ > variability of light's frequency, since it can be diffracted, > that beyond the hydrogen line (and the usual account of > the hydrogen line about transmissibility in the interstellar > medium of "standard candles"), is that _Faraday's_ original > account what makes for Zeeman, was sodium, and > _sodium has at least three spectroscopic lines_. > > > So, for something like Ogden Rood an account of the > prismatic and the chromatic, and about a "dual: > tristimulus color-space", and notions like > "a real colorless green" the mono-chromatic > and "mono-prismatic", the theories of _color_ > and light and correspondingly _everything to do with it_, > > > So, since Rayleigh-Jeans and the usual account of the > quantization or removing "infinity" from the theory > (since, it was "continuity" and "continuity" always > has "infinity"), the "ultra-violet catastrophe", > since there are three kinds of purple in the optical, > visible light besides the usual account of one red, > if you've ever heard of "ultraviolet catastrophe" > and know the usual derivations and where food comes from, > is as about an "infra-red catastrophe". > > The word "catastrophe" means "opening" or "perestroika" > in mathematics about basically "widening" the theory, > usual accounts of language though often attach it > to "crisis", which after Rayleigh-Jeans was made > for Zeeman then Lyman as the ostrich inserting > its head directly into the sand and counting > one granule at a time. > > > > Anyways a "dual-tristimulus color-space" in the middle, > then "three purples" besides for beyond the warmth of > incandescant light, then about that the infra-red is > present in the Cosmic Microwave Background, makes for > an "infra-red catastrophe" since today's physics has > a crisis about not having a "continuous color-less green". > > > > Then there are various accounts after astronomy of > all sorts optical effects after aberrations that > generally point to Fresnel as a great optician, > then as with regards to the particular energy > of the Roentgen and gamma and X-rays, those being > rather like visible light, and radio astronomy, > that actually being electromagnetic radiation while > visible, optical light has no mass nor charge, > makes for that the sky survey has been around forever. > Also the "gravitational wave astronomy" is a bit > more current than usual "show me pictorially" accounts. > > > https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson/videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpdL9P6g4yY "Logos 2000: color theory"
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-03 10:06 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-03 23:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-03 13:47 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-04 16:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-03-04 09:42 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-04 02:52 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-07 23:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-06 09:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-07 00:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 07:47 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-07 17:12 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-07 06:59 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-08 11:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-07 19:19 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 01:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 08:29 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 12:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 20:04 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 20:17 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 00:09 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 07:36 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 09:09 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 14:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 14:17 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-10 23:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 16:14 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 08:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-11 13:50 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 14:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 00:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 16:10 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 16:07 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 07:11 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 18:26 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 09:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:22 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 12:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 03:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 23:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 14:16 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 03:45 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 21:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 18:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 11:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-12 10:35 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 10:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 03:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-15 21:42 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 21:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-16 08:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:06 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-17 01:14 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 00:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-17 10:34 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 15:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-18 00:27 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 21:00 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-18 11:07 -0700
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-18 11:47 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 15:14 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 07:47 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 18:11 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 15:07 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-18 23:07 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 18:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 09:31 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 20:38 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-19 11:54 -0700
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-20 11:59 -0700
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-20 15:28 -0700
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-22 12:12 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 23:05 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 16:23 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 07:47 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 07:32 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 15:56 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 11:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 10:59 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 11:41 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 13:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 23:59 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 07:32 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-09 21:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 15:24 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 15:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 22:07 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 16:58 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 23:26 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 09:25 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 04:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 10:45 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 16:26 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 08:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 00:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 16:10 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 16:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 07:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 18:39 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 09:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 10:17 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 13:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 03:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 23:23 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:05 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:31 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 08:38 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 08:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 00:28 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 03:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 10:13 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 16:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 14:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 17:02 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 11:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 01:00 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 18:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 12:48 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 16:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 04:09 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 21:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 17:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-13 22:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 14:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 21:29 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 03:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-15 21:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-15 14:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 17:24 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-15 18:10 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 14:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 05:14 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 01:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 08:04 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-16 08:32 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 10:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 00:43 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 15:35 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 03:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 17:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 06:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 20:41 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 21:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 11:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 23:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 13:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 07:48 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 03:58 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 14:47 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-17 21:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 15:56 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-18 13:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 23:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 14:41 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 20:14 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 16:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 06:58 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 08:13 -0700
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-15 17:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 09:39 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 09:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 15:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 05:21 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 02:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 10:56 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 11:29 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 07:57 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 04:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:35 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 15:01 +1100
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-16 11:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 02:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-16 08:34 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 11:02 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-17 07:20 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 08:12 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 06:56 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 14:47 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-16 22:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 08:03 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 04:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 14:43 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 16:05 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 07:39 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 09:07 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-18 09:11 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 21:28 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 12:10 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 01:35 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 07:44 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 07:52 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 09:42 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 09:58 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 10:28 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-20 11:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 02:54 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-22 10:31 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 22:21 +1100
Re: energy and mass liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-03-22 21:23 +0000
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 21:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-23 09:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 22:31 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 08:11 -0700
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-19 11:17 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-08 09:53 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 02:07 +1100
csiph-web