Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670176
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: energy and mass |
| Date | 2026-03-19 11:17 -0700 |
| Organization | The Starmaker Organization |
| Message-ID | <69BC3DC8.1A59@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <BqWcnTDwgMuTuSv0nZ2dnZfqnPpg4p2d@giganews.com> <10p5fb3$r5l9$5@dont-email.me> <n1v4guFlkclU1@mid.individual.net> <10pdunt$3n2fa$5@dont-email.me> <n223d6F4l6qU6@mid.individual.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Thomas Heger wrote: > > 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 I might got lost here... if you want to know the Truth of why the building colaspe.. it makes good TV. I mean, you simply cannot have those buildings on tvee to continue burning for days while America and the world watches. It's not a good image. You need to remove the buildings by 'any means necessary'. Then there is nothing to look at on tv. bomb some country... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous 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 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> - 2026-03-29 09:56 +0200
Re: energy and mass Daren Remond <ndno@dmrndd.us> - 2026-03-29 13:04 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:33 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 01:32 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-29 07:39 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:48 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 18:15 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-30 10:17 +0200
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:13 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 22:46 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-31 13:57 +0200
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 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-27 10:39 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-29 10:19 +0200
Re: energy and mass Cloro Sandiford <iofnd@dosc.us> - 2026-03-29 13:01 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:31 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 02:45 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:39 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 23:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-01 09:47 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 02:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-01 18:23 +0200
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:12 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 23:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-05 09:57 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-06 02:53 +1000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:31 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 03:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-03 09:38 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 04:15 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-03 23:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 21:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-05 10:14 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 20:58 +1000
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-19 11:17 -0700
csiph-web