Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #741892
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: energy and mass |
| Date | 2026-03-19 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n223d6F4l6qU6@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (19 earlier) <tNOcnfrSHZqTajf0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <BqWcnTDwgMuTuSv0nZ2dnZfqnPpg4p2d@giganews.com> <10p5fb3$r5l9$5@dont-email.me> <n1v4guFlkclU1@mid.individual.net> <10pdunt$3n2fa$5@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Am Mittwoch000018, 18.03.2026 um 11:28 schrieb Bill Sloman: > On 18/03/2026 7:11 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Sonntag000015, 15.03.2026 um 06:16 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>> 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. >> >> Nature is not supposed to care about human laws (like that of >> 'conservation of mass-energy' you mentioned.) >> >> It is simply the other way round: nature tells us stories and we try >> to interpret them correctly. >> >> And if the Earth would in fact grow from within, the law you mentioned >> would have to go and needs to be replaced with something compatible >> with a growing Earth. >> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >> >> >> sure, there are MILLIONS of papers stored on archives.org alone. >> >> Nobody could ever read them. >> >> But Hilgenberg's book about the growing planet is not stored on >> archives.org, but was a real printed book. >> >> It is also not a physics book, but about geology. >> >> Hilgenberg was a geologist and wrote about geological observations, >> which could be interpreted, if we would assume, that the Earth would >> grow. >> >> I came to this topic from a different direction, because I had >> assumed, that matter is 'relative'. >> >> For this I was looking for 'experimental' evidence and a growing >> planet would do. >> >> Also the disapearance of matter would be a proof. And that does >> actually exist, too. >> >> The rather astonishing example of vanishing matter is actually 9/11. >> >> At that infamous day the WTC collapsed and left a pile of rubble >> behind, which contained less than 20% of the origional building >> materials. >> >> That is quite astonishing and I had use this example frequently since >> at least ten years for 'relativity of matter'. >> >> Now you certainly demand proof, that at least 1 million to of matter >> disappeared at 9/11. >> >> That is actually possible and astonishingly easy. >> >> But it would, however, require some work by the reader of this article. >> >> So, please have a look at this video from CBS > > I don't waste my time watching videos, least of all those offered up by > conspiracy nut-cases. The video is evidence from a quite reasonable source (CBS). So, if you like to know, whether matter can disappear without a trace, you should actually have a look at that video. You could watch other videos of 9/11, of course, if you prefer to do so. And there are actually millions of videos available from that day. But I cannot possibly comment all of them, hence took the video from CBS. >> (This is in German, but google would certainly help to translate it.) >> >> Now I wanted to prove, that the pile of rubble isn't 40 to 80m high >> (as it should be) but only about 4 to 8m. > > The twin towers were steel-framed and steel burns to ferric oxide when > it gets hot enough. The heat generated produced air currents which > spread the oxide and any other dust particles around far and wide. Sure, but the effects visible at the video are far more exotic than simple rust. I wanted to prove, that more than a million to of building materials vanished without a trace. These masses of steel and concrete simply went away and nobody knows to where. This is actually a physical problem and related to the topic of this thread (which is still 'energy and mass'). The question to explore is actually: is mass 'conserved'? This is so, because 1 mio to of steel and concrete usually do not get blown away. That's why physicists could take such a rare event and treat it as a (well documented) scientific 'experiment'. > There was a lot of smoke around in the immediate aftermath of the fire > and the collapse. > >> That would mean, that a HUGE portion of the building materials from >> which the towers were once build vanished in thin air. > > As fine dust. Well, yes. But 'fine dust' would need an explanation, too, because skyscrapers rarely turn into fine dust. >> To understand this argument you would need to know a few things about >> the former twin towers. >> >> The towers were a little more then 400m high and had a mass of roughly >> 600.000 to each. >> >> The mass could be taken and used to calculate a rubble pile, which >> could contain the building materials, if they were cut to fine pieces >> and piled upon a huge pile. > > They weren't cut into fine pieces, but rather incinerated into fine dust > and blown away. Ok, the skyscrapers turned into fine dust, which was blown away. BUT: since when do skyscrapers turn into fine dust? >> That mountain would be about 10% to 20% as high as the origional >> building, hence would reach the tenth or 20th floor (depending on the >> density of the rubble). And 41 m would be the lower end of the density >> range, which is equvalent to the tenth floor. >> >> But instead of that, they reached only half the height of the former >> lobby, what would be about 6 to 8 m. >> >> The rubble was also not in the basement, what the video from CBS >> mentioned above shall prove. >> >> The proof is simple: > > But wrong. > >> the huge basement was not a compact mess of stone and steel, as we >> would expect, but was almost entirely undamaged. > > As you might expect if you neglected to think about what had actually > happened. No, not at all. I personally thought, that an exotic weapon was used, which could turn large structures of steel and concrete into fine dust. But I would have doubts about al-quida having such a device. >> That should shock you, since that would mean, that 80 to 90% of the >> original building materials vanished without a trace. > > Dust clouds are ephemeral. They blow away. They don't have to blow far > away to avoid showing up in the basement. Dust blows away, that's true. But how would you transform a 400m skyscraper into fine dust?? It also happened in mid-air, because the fine dust was blown away, before it had reached the ground. My guess was therefor some VERY unusual weapon, which was possibly stationed in space and which shot down from the orbit. The very first shots were apparently a near miss, because the first building blown up wasn't one of the twin-towers, but the costums building WTC-6. That happened earlier than the collapse of the towers. My additional guess: if this event was actually caused by an exotic weapon, then 9/11 would have been a collosal stupidity. The reason: if such a device would exist, it would be absolutly crazy to actually use it in such a way, because now every single despot on planet Earth wants such a device, too. TH
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 09:02 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 21:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:26 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 08:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 02:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 08:59 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 22:01 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 15:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 02:47 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 09:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 03:17 +1100
Re: energy and mass liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-03-27 20:58 +0000
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-19 11:17 -0700
csiph-web