Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670017
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: energy and mass |
| Date | 2026-03-17 07:20 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <bpoirkhemutpbd06uagmrogqctupv60eq5@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <10p6l4v$177r3$1@dont-email.me> <10p7vbk$1kml3$6@dont-email.me> <10p8kcn$1rj00$1@dont-email.me> <nl8grklapv508hvt1kddnb3m7eshu8aq21@4ax.com> <4A2dnaqtZLBA2CX0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 11:02:55 -0700, Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >On 03/16/2026 08:34 AM, john larkin wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 11:00:55 +0100, Jeroen Belleman >> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >> >>> On 3/16/26 05:01, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 16/03/2026 3:01 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. >>>> >>>> Cite? Gravitational lensing has made a few far,far-away galaxies quite >>>> bright, and the Lyman-alpha lines ought to be resolvable. >>>> >>>> [...] >>> >>> I came across the statement in 2016, but I did not keep the >>> reference, sorry. I'm not a cosmologist. It did contribute >>> to my mistrust of cosmology as a science. >>> >>> Jeroen Belleman >> >> I'm beginning to think that God is a lot smarter than we are. >> >> >> John Larkin >> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >> > >It's generally given that the "Supreme" or "Omni" is >the un-falsifiable so it's super-scientific, while as >well that idealistically there could only be monotheism >after theism after monism (or, against pluralism), >thus that agnosticism is a perfectly rational account >of what may as well be related and relayed as a great >"gift" of mathematical perfection that thusly a model >reasoner may voluntarily submit their ontological commitment. > You sure have a way with words. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Back to sci.physics.relativity | 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 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 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-19 11:17 -0700
csiph-web