Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #669336

Re: energy and mass

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/01/2026 08:06 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 02/28/2026 05:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> [world salad]
>>>
>>> Get well soon.
>>>
>>>> A usual idea distinguishing philosophy and science is that
>>>> science starts with a theory and philosophy ends with one.
>>>
>>> For once a statement by you which is NOT word salad, and with which I fully
>>> agree.
>>> [...]
>>
>> Heh, "world salad".
>
> Typo ':-)
>
>> Since all conscious reason involves philosophy,
>> then the theory of mathematics gets directly involved
>> in all matters of mathematical theories like mathematical
>> physics.
>
> Mathematics is not a theory, it is a science.
>
>> Science is a natural philosophy.
>
> No.
>
>> So is probability theory, [...]
>
> No.  While probability theory has applications in practice, it can be used
> without any reference to Nature.  That is an important difference between a
> structure science like mathematics and a natural science like physics.
>
> See also:
>
> Feynman's Messenger Lectures: 2. The Relation of Mathematics and Physics
> <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
>

In the maturity of communications in letters, long ago it was amusing
to reply in-line and seize on each comment apiece as were it a statement 
itself instead of an extended narrative, and what I found
resulted was that the discontinuities so introduced weren't really
any sort of good style and that later when considering the text as
part of a voluble essay of sorts, that it mostly always resulted better
to make complete statements of the sort of the not-top-posting and
not-quote-splitting thusly that later it reads much better just
concatenating the self-contained complete statements, making for
that generously for readers including those for whom it's an exercise
and those for whom it's essentially free, that thusly they can rely
on mostly just concatenating my missives as they are into what
results a coherent sort of account.

For example, considering this thread "energy and mass", it's been
invigorated a bit since sci.electronic.design besides 
sci.physics.relativity consider it, and writing is appreciated
and thanks for writing, then, I wonder how it would read to just
take it right out of context and make a context of itself.


The previous activity was mostly on "Galaxies don't fly apart because
their entire frame is rotating".


Then, looking for some excerpts, it's rather simplified to make
whole excerpts of my stated views on these matters, since the
idea of not-top-posting and not-quote-splitting is considered
conducive to elements of style.



">

Ah, yet _ex falso quodlibet_ is the compounding of fallacy
and admission of truth's defeat, the conscientious logician
must instead demand _ex falso nihilum_, since _ex falso falsum_.

"Energy" is never "pure energy", always in the quantities
in the forms.

The, "indeterminate forms", vis-a-vis, the undefined,
may make surely for the, "determinate forms",
in the defined.

Solar sails work. If one suggests that it's "ionic wind"
others have that it's light plainly.

Actually, a photon follows about _half_ the curvature of
spacetime, which was enough to improve the computation
of the precession of Mercury.

1/2/3


 >

It's of note that seemingly-capricious factors of
the "doubling" and the "halving" show up in quite
a number of formulaic accounts that don't have
mathematical justifications themselves except that
in the limit (toward zero) they're the negligeable,
and that the eventual empirical result was off
by a factor of two. I.e., it's an arbitrary constant.


Here then we have the "re-Vitali-ization" of measure
theory that since Zeno's stadium-runners or "graduation
course" why the act itself of individuation of individua
of continua results "doubling measures" and "halving measures"
and "doubling spaces" and "halving spaces". I.e., Vitali's
otherwise "non-measurable" construction is instead that it
gives the modern (19th/20th c.) classical example of the
super-classical, to then "Re-Vitali-ize" (revitalize) measure
theory, since measure theory thusly needs accounts for the
"quasi-invariant measure theory", as it's called, for then
Vitali and then Hausdorff as great geometers since Vitali
and Hausdorff make for 1-D and 3-D cases of equi-decomposability.


So, in a sense, the usual algebraic derivation itself is suspect,
and, with Planck having his own sort of account of "quasi-invariant
measure", or rather, concealing it in the derivation, it's a quite
usual thing, "doubling measures" after Vitali (and since Zeno) and
"pi-ratio measures" for the "yin-yang ad-infinitum".


It's a continuum mechanics.




The travel and passage and transit of light as "according to
the geodesy" (or here, as was noted to be equivalent in a
usual sense of "in the limit", an "orbifold"), that light
actually has a _world-line_ in the geodesy which governed
as it is by GR as were light being massy, here is for an
account of "Greater Fresnel" (or, "fuller Fresnel" or "wide
Fresnel") as it's been called: the lensing the optics.


This intends to combine notions like gravitational-lensing
and micro-lensing, with effects as to the Arago spot and
since effects like magnification of the horizon, and even
the most simple sort of account of the image of an optical
light source coming around obstructions, for example if
you use a camera to image the Sun and and pass a round
body across the image, the effect of lensing that the
image of the light emitting source emerges as of _through_
the otherwise opaque object, has the idea of "Greater Fresnel"
or "fuller Fresnel" to help better explain lensing and optics,
and and besides matters of the sky survey, also including the
terrestrial horizon, and the painter's thumb, or model's head
(in front of the light).


So, Einstein's model _improves_ Newton's, mostly courtesy
an algebraic derivation of that being one of the biggest,
"fudge", factors, as it's called, in physics.




The ephemeris is given by parameterized post-Newtonian or
PPN formalism, and quantum properties include beyond
momentum and spin also the multipole and quadrupole
moments - those being thusly practical in effect,
has that the reductionist SR-ians are not exactly civilized.


"Doing science" and "getting rich or at least comfortable
in a charade of doing science" are two different things.


It's like anything else where the guy with the biggest
mouth is estimated to have the largest void in his head.


That though PPN has it's account of factors and that
the modern quantum formalism has a table of quantum
properties rather enlarged from the plain usual schoolbook
account, speaks for itself.



 >

These matters of optical "illusion" (or "aberration" as
it's called in optics, like the spherical coma and that
eyeballs are globular and so on), much like "perceived
F-T-L a.k.a. super-luminal velocities in the sky survey"
still have that they're reproducible and measurable/observable
and even in the classical middling milieu or the senses alone.

Then, calling those optical "illusions" is a descriptive term
from the theory synonymous with otherwise "effect", where "effect"
is the usual term given to any real physical effect otherwise
"outside the model".

A particular example is Arago spot, the mathematics of optics
arrived at it not existing, yet another arrived at that it
did. Both are apropos mathematical models of physical models,
one appears in effect. Another usual example is the Heaviside's
telegrapher's equation, and for example where Euler, who's often
so successfully remembered in many modern derivations, got it
wrong in his model of the pluck of what results a vibrating string.


The eventual contortions to distort angle about FTL in the sky
survey, or to simply ignore as negligeable otherwise what results
the completion the spot, or to deftly introduce the necessary fudge
factors in the derivation (which could be any constant about though
usually enough 2 in the quadratic so it's simplified), get into why
there are algebraic implicits and that formula generally is always in
a context of derivation besides template itself.

"Bees can't fly ...." -- aeronautics, 1970's


It's a continuum mechanics.


Fresnel is considered a great optician.




If that's enough from me about physics, here's for example
a sort of discussion about medicine, starting with a bit
about physics and later about some philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fGNw3jiDU8&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=8


The, "Analysis and Methods" bits there, get into some of
the considerations of the algebraic or properly the derivation.


"Retrospectivus"



 >

It seems so that we're each expected to have
a familiarity and a facility and a fluency
in the standard formalisms, _and their derivations_,
then also _and their implicits_, and about that
_the reductionist account was reduced from
a wider account_.

The "shut up and compute" bit seems suffices
with "facility", matters of convenience, in a sense,
about the sensibility, fungibility, tractability of
the descriptions of tendencies and propensities
in attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution.


Sort of like other professional environments,
where everybody is expected to know everything.


Here there's no account of second-class citizens,
of who-gets-to-say who-gets-to-say,
it's the account itself that speaks for itself.

So, if somebody doesn't know that the convenient
reductionism has _by definition_ lost something of
itself its real character, we may call them ignorant
and unweight their opinion. Then, when furthermore
the real character and the empirical have means of
a greater anti-reductionist account, then they do,
it is what it is.




A "fall-gravity" is since Fatio-LeSage that for Newton's
"pull-gravity", which everyone knows is a constant violation
of the conservation of energy everywhere, that a "push-gravity"
of Fatio-LeSage is a common idea that gravity's real mechanism
is as of a universal gravific field, then Einstein's "follow-gravity"
is no different than Newton's "pull-gravity", then that a "fall-gravity"
is for an approach that for example unifies the force
of gravity with the strong nuclear force, unifying in the sense
of actually being the same mechanism and same explanation not
just erasing their differences by reduction to terms after
linearization and approximation of terms.

So, a "fall-gravity" then also is a "quantum gravity", where
for the various (or, you know, three) regimes of super-symmetry,
that the atom is the real graviton (the force carrier of gravity)
itself.

pull-gravity <- classical
push-gravity
follow-gravity
fall-gravity <- real







Reductionists and nominalists may sort of self-certify themselves,
pitifully though that's ignorant,
physicsts as realists are rather necessarily anti-reductionists.





Einstein in "Electrodynamics" in "The Principle of Relativity"
(Lorentz, Einstein, Minkowski, Weyl, Sommerfeld)
titles section 8 as "Transformation of the Energy
of Light Rays. Theory of the Pressure of Radiation
Exerted on Perfect Reflectors".

Wouldn't a "perfect reflector" be opposite "photoelectric effect",
i.e. absorption?

Seems he wants it both ways, ....





Lensing of a usual sort happens a lot and is easily observable,
"occlusion lensing" vis-a-vis "tunnel lensing".



Here I got the AI's acknowledging quite a bit of one theory.

For example, there are quite a ton of comments on
this video essay "Logos 2000: physics today".



 >

In particle physics, there's particle/wave duality
that everybody knows about.

About momentum and radiant pressure,
one wonders what sort of energy light
has, "light energy", since the particles
as they would be have no mass and no charge.

It's given how much there is of it,
energy being conserved and all and
as about frequency and wavelength,
according to electron-physics'
1-electron:1-photon, of a given
wavelength (or wave velocity it is for photons)
and frequency, ..., photons themselves
though have neither mass nor charge.

One seems to recall that Newton had a
corpuscular theory of light, if not
"photons", per se. More about Newton's
theory of light besides the usual account
of the spectrum after the prism includes
Newton's "second spectrum" of earth tones
or primary colors as it were, while today
instead after things like Lyman and Balmer
(and before, too, or zero'eth order) there
are quite a few models of "second spectrum"
to do with incandescence, phosphorescence,
fluoerescence, and so on. (Here there's
an account of a "dual-tri-stimulus colorspace
model" as well "colorless green" about an
"infrared catastrophe" to complement the
usual "ultraviolet catastrophe", since
hues and shades of purple, indigo, violet,
magenta, and so on can be made from many
combinations, while red is more or less hot.)


Everybody knows that particles are waves,
that's more fundamental than optical light
being special and not in the convention _electromagnetic_.
This is clearly demonstrated by optical effects,
that radio waves do not have. Whether particles
even "exist" besides that they're classical to compute
is a usual matter since Democritus and Xenocrates.


About the electron theory of matter and Planck,
and about how that got related to light, besides
the fact that there are at least three constants 'c'
that vary their explanation _and their magnitude_,
makes for a usual account for that electromagnetisms
_wave velocity_ is different than light's _wave length_.


After "the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction"
or why momentum is in the formalism in the pair-wise
point-wise instead of energy itself, is simply as a
matter of derivation that the differential is primary
instead of the integral, and all the higher-order
and what would be interacting-terms just go away.
I.e., that's reductionism for you.




When somebody says "nonsense", and I'm making sense,
I see that as an act of declarative ignorance,
that by definition it's an act of an, "ignoramus".

If you're not making sense of it -
don't go making nonsense of it.

That said I definitely think that these more informed
sorts of wider accounts help to bring the light, as
it were, to these underserved, deserving aspects of
the theory.





The "chemically-assisted nuclear reaction" or "low-energy nuclear
reaction" (CANR/LENR) are things, yes.

These days there's that electrolysis simply enough makes
sustainable aviation fuel (or gasoline) from carbon dioxide
(air) and water, about $7/gallon. (Not counting inflation.)
Sustainable, carbon neutral, economical, dot dot dot. Eg "Aircela".

The closed ecosystem of consumer electronic devices is probably
enough the most usual example of monopoly in effect.

Anyways the stasi-fication or surveillance-gluttons
seems as likely as anything else the results of
such sorts chilling events.

Sort of like a monoculture of a turkey farm,
one gets sick then they all die. Or bananas,
other examples of the weakness of monocultures,
for example.


CANR/LENR produces neutrons.

Then, "nucleonics" instead of "hadronics" is quite
a different thing the entire idea of the constituency
of the nucleus, hadronics about Z-pinch and electromagnetism
plainly while though the weak and strong nuclear forces
belong as well to nucleonics.


How about Fadeev and Popov and Jefimenko.


How about things like MEMS which actually _are_
in effect, or for example various field effect
devices in the usual handset and consumer electronics
about accelerometers after space contraction,
or various sorts of ambient radio wave selectivity.


 >

How about the Batavia/Baikal neutrino-phone that
sent a "Watson, come into the room" quite
_directly through the core of the Earth_
in _effectively zero elapsed time_.


These were larger enterprises, ....

Anyways DM/DE have falsified the usual theories
with their usual interpretations.

And so does spinning a top.




"More general" and "more specific" here are one and the same,
what's a singularity in a singularity theory is
a branch in a multiplicity theory.

The mathematical "without loss of generality" is always specific.

About the concept of, "general mathematical generality",
is for "Foundations" a "Theory of Everything" claim.




Of course, that's a pretty specific "general mathematical generality".

Absolute and relative?  General and specific.





Einstein's later work was toward a total field theory,
and one may offer generously that he was conscientious
of the limitations of his own work.

For example if you read "Out of My Later Years", he says so.

D'Espagnat in "On Physics and Philosophy" definitely makes
for so that "realism" is yet lacking in the usual account,
and that "anti-realism" is not itself scientific.

Here from my podcasts https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
is an example excerpt at 43:20 and some commentary from d'Espagnat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2TJXKGlj6U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F795DGcwSvwHj-GEbdhPJNe&index=11&t=2600


Also among my podcasts I read Einstein's "Out of My Later Years",
which one may aver that if Einstein's word is good and he's not
actively lie-ing, i.e. generously, that "Out of My Later Years"
is Einstein's standing opinion on science and includes his own
refined definition of Einstein's Relativity.

Here there's a realist and anti-reductionist theory, and
studying logic and philosophy of science makes it easier
to not get flim-flammed by operationalist nominalists.




Somebody like Hulme eschews Whitehead about the disconnectedness
of the logicist positivism from the entelechy of reality.

Compte, Boole, Russell, Carnap, logicist positivism,
since Occam, Plotinus, Philo,
there's since Chrysippus and Aristotle himself,
and Duns Scotus and Aquinas, and De Morgan,
and all sorts realists, why causality is by definition
inviolable.

Bohm is considered pretty great, for something like Leibnitz'
principles of continuity and perfection, instead of something
like Schopenhauer's "qualitas occultas", "hidden variables".

Fritz London then, has a lot going on since Zeno.


I don't have very much experience in electronics design,
yet at least have usual notions of standard and custom logic,
then about both digital and power engineering. Then I point
to somebody like Richardson's "The Electron Theory of Matter",
as a wider account than the usual reductionism to Maxwell,
for Euler and Gauss and Poisson and Green the tensors the theorems,
about Poincare and Heaviside and Fitzgerald and Larmor.

There are various ways to make definitions and derivations
what result the usual account of current, about the potentials
the potentialistic, including Lienard-Wiechert.

And Faraday, ....





 >

It's like we were just talking about Einstein and the
"Principle of Relativity" circa 1923 when basically
he gives an account for Electrodynamics that exactly
the polar opposite and an inaccessible singularity
the "having it both ways".

Continuity and infinity are surely integral the
mathematics, thus the mathematical physics,
then here for accounts like space inversion
and simply enough the convolutional setting
and singular integrals and the like, and the
hypergeometric, with the hypergeometric's
regular singular points: zero, one, and infinity.


It's not just that super-symmetry isn't dead:
also there are at least three kinds.

All one theory, where for example gravity itself
is a giant violation of conservation of energy
in the usual, premier theories.


 >

Of course, "magnetic monopoles" are matters of
singularity theory, that singularities in
singularity theory are merely branches in
multiplicity theory: there's though that
"there are no closed time-like curves" since
it's for a holographic setting that causality
as it may be is inviolable.


If quantum mechanics is never wrong:
if it's not a continuum mechanics
you're doing it wrong.




 >

Differential equations are said to have "solutions",
integral equations have "plane curves" (isoclines).

Most anywhere that D.E.'s or Diff. Eq's show up in
applications, there are integral equations of feedback
involved, the "differintegro" and "integrodiffer".
To a, ..., "first-order approximation" though it's
pretty usual.  "Successful" theories like Einstein's
Relativity, often their greatest claim is "first-order
approximation".


The identity line is the envelope of the integral
equations the linear fractional equation, and also
both Clairaut's and d'Alembert's integral equations.
Sort of like zero is often a trivial solution to Diff. Eq.'s,
the envelope of integral equations is not really outside
the bounds so much as "is" the bounds.

Kodaira, Zariski, and Lescop have more about that.




Have you have of "deBroglie-Bohm"? Basically their ideas
(or, mostly Bohm) about "real wave collapse" about the usual
quantum formalism the Heisenberg-Scroedinger piucture: make
for a different than the usual Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics ("It's..., random") that it's not random
and it's not discontinuous, instead since continuum mechanics.

Often enough that was called "hidden variables", then the word
"hidden variables" was publicly shamed, so these times sometimes
it's called "supplementary variables", though, people who stuck
by their own idea of why nature's perfection would demand a
continuum mechanics still have it often enough "hidden variables"
to reflect on Bohm's origins of the ideas and not give it to
the old-wrapped-as-new sort who didn't have to stand up for anything.




 >
 >

(Thanks for writing, I'm long inured to petty abuse on open
forums due essential misunderstandings, or the tragedy of
the commons, so you'll find that my machismo and bravado
are essentially forgiving and will always make a generous reading.)



 >

It's simple that particle/wave duality the usual account
always must make for wave/resonance dichotomy, say.

It's just as simple to models waves and particles
and particles and waves and waves and resonances and
resonances and waves, as each other variously, since
for example wave mechanics is the usual notion of
"change in an open system", then for Huygens principle,
that waves beget waves, then also for the accounts of
wavelets, at the boundaries, or ondes and ondelettes.






I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?


How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.

Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.

How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.



Great. I got a lot out of Penrose's "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy (...in
Physics)". Or, at least a reputed authority's account that "functional
freedom" as he puts it makes for a great schism, a crisis, in physics.

Recall Millikan measuring an electron (or rather, establishing a
charge/mass ratio), then about Rayleigh-Jeans getting to spectroscopy
or, "the Old quantum mechanics", about the discretization, of what
would otherwise be continuous quantities, to discrete quantities,
or "quantization".


The, "standard linear curriculum", it's fair to say that we all
sat the "standard linear curriculum".

Then, a usual account of, the "non-linear", and, the "non-standard",
reflect upon what the "linear curriculum's" account of "linear algebra"
simply doesn't include, that mathematics does include.

About definitions of continuity, of course there are the,
"classical expositions of the super-classical", or Zeno's.

Then, a lot of people say that Aristotle, who's the authority in
Western reason since antiquity, is Archimedean in the sense of
there not existing neither infinitesimals nor infinities. Yet,
it is as well so that Xenocrates is part of an account of Aristotle's
as well, the lesser acknowledged accounts of Aristotle that include
both the prior and posterior analytics, makes for "standard
infinitesimals", "iota-values", say, between zero and one an
exact infinitude of them.


Then, this bridges between the classical account of the Pythagorean,
where almost-all is rational, and the modern account of the Cantorian,
where almost-all is transcendental, about Vitali and Hausdorff,
to make for why it's not a paradox to make for three definitions
of, "continuous domains".

We're familiar with, "continuous functions", yet, their definition
holds even if defined on rationals, since it's just an account as
after topology and basically for intermediate-value-theorem /
mean-value-theorem / trapezoid rule.

Then, the definition of, "continous domain" itself, is usually
left to the "complete ordered field", the Archimedean field,
in the standard linear curriculum. So, calling those field
reals, then it is yet so that "line reals" or these "iota-values",
are also mathematically, structurally, another example of a
continuous domain. Then there's a third a la "signal reals"
since the Shannon/Nyquist theorem you'll know basically makes
for the supersampling as doubling, to result a continuous
domain after analysis of the rationals.


So, "Mathematical Foundations" itself has structures, features,
of the objects of the "domain of discourse" or our language about
it, the inter-subjective account as after language, structures of
mathematical continuity and infinity, that automatically equip
mathematical physics.


I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.


Warm regards




For physics, and as well mathematics, this is very much
a "realist" account, vis-a-vis "nomalist fictionalism".

To accommodate this in language, there's an idea of an ideal
"Comenius language", of all truisms, when the domain of discourse
is discourse itself, and all truism, with only the Liar as an
example of a template satisfying being a "lie-detector" among
the "truth-makers". Then from our finite and human meso-scale,
we have a sort of, "Coleridge language", which attempts to
make metaphor, which eventually fails, of the strong metonymy.
Then, that gets related to Leibnitz' "universal grammar",
Duns Scotus' "univocity", Nietzsche's "eternal basic text",
and Quine's "text".


This then obviates some of the reasoning of, "logicist positivism",
of the weaker variety or "nominalist fictionalism", of usual
accounts of pick-em-up-and-put-em-down theories, for making
a "stronger logicist positivism", to go along with a realist's
"stronger mathematical platonism".


Then, it's figured that "mathematical physics" really is
a continuum mechanics, here for example for matters of
"energy and entelechy" with regards to "dynamics and dunamis
the power and potential" of realists' potentialistic theory,
about why the classical is really potentialistic and really
potential itself again.


Then, the "severe abstractions" like "quantization" are
useful while yet merely partial.

The "wider account of repleteness for mathematical completeness",
or continuity, then, gets quite involved throughout.


So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.

And correct, ....


 >

Accounts like that of Fred Katz and OUTPACING give for
a size relation of sets that proper supersets of sets
are demonstrably "larger", in a size relation.

The usual notion of "asymptotic density" or "Schnirelmann density"
gives an account that only half of the integers are even.

The integers and rationals having the same cardinal is called
"Galilean". It was called "Galileo's paradox" since it
contradicted "asymptotic density".

Cardinality after Cantor's Mengenlehre and Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory, then its interpretation of number-theorem structure
according to descriptive set theory, which is the great account
of 20'th century formalization of mathematics in a
theory-of-one-relation the set theory, sees necessary re-interpretation
with
regards to other theories-of-one-relation, like ordering theory
for Ordinals, and as well about three three regularities of
well-foundedness (eg, Zermelo), well-ordering (eg, Zorn), and
well-dispersion (eh, Martin) that there are great accounts of
the independence of these with regards to each other, since
Skolem and Mirimanoff, and, Goedel, von Neumann, and Cohen.

Then, Erdos' "Giant Monster of Mathematical Independence",
helps reflect upon things like whether there's a prime at
infinity, or a composite, and that there are independent
models of arithmetic, either way, yet somehow not inconsistent
together, as "dually-self infraconsistent" overall, a theory,
an "Atlas of Mathematical Independence", for law(s), plural,
of large numbers.

A Theory, ....






Classical effects in mechanics after the "gyrational"
show up in the third order, including things like
"visco-elastic creep", "Magnus heft", and "spinning a top".

Sedov always nominally includes continuum and gyrational
or gyratory effects in "mascroscopic theory of matter".

In something like Einstein's there's for example
the "cosmological constant", while though it's
"vanishing yet non-zero". For Levi-Civita it's
about "the indefiniteness of ds^2", i.e. again
about infintesimal analysis and quite thoroughly
for the non-standard the, "un-linear".





How about Schopenhauer's "qualitas occultas".

If you look around for "real wave collapse" and for example
with "supplementary variables" then with regards to Bohm's
ideas of "pilot wave" and "ghost wave" and for example
about Fadeev and Popov "ghost particles", one can find
that it's considered by some more explanatory than
something like Feynman's "virtual photons", which are
un-observed (un-scientific).

A. Neumaier's "A theoretical physics FAQ" used to have
a section on "real wave collapse". 
https://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/physics-faq.html



 >

For something like nucleonics and nuclear theory,
there's that the periodic table of elements,
has another chart for the isotope chart, that's
just more like a wide line on the order of atomic
mass, then that their fundamental identities and
associations, of the nuclear species, might find
the usual account as after organizing for bond orbitals,
as removed from classical as the isotope table is
from the periodic table.


It's similar with other theories about what's "elementary"
and what's "derived", or what's "fundamental" and what's
"derived", as to what is incremental in one, is only
eventual in the other, and vice versa.

For example, a space of geometry, and a space of words,
has usual accounts since, for example, and not to make
a theological account yet only as a common source with
established editions, Genesis 1 starts with a space
for geometry and John 1 starts with a space for words.


Then, geometry itself is sort of the same way,
about points and lines or points and spaces
more thoroughly. For example, via induction,
one may not make a point from dividing lines or
a line from connecting points, yet, there's a
point for deduction that Leibnitz' perfection
of gaplesness "jumplessness" or what eventually
has Hilbert's "postulate of continuity", are
axioms that intend to suffice when otherwise
it would demand a deductive account where
induction is not infallible then to relate
matters of continuity to the geometric series.


It's so that we can't really speak of that
for which there are no words, ultimately
"the ineffable", then that the idea that
man can comprehend the infinite and continuous,
is for matters of reason, besides.


 >

"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.

"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.

Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.

Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".


... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.


Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.


All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".


The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)



 >

We were just discussing things like "loop" and "spin" with
regards to the quantum, then, in mathematical physics one
account since the '80's makes for the account of the metric,
which you'll known that in mechanism its establishment is central
as for the metric and norm for length and distance,
there's the "zollfrei metric", as an account of for
something like geometry: that Euclid, and, Poincare,
make for two distinct perspectives on the plane,
Euclid's _smooth_ plane, and Poincare's _rough_ plane.

Now, Poincare was a man, and furthermore a geometer,
and "Euclid" is generally considered a panel, of a man.

So, much like the considerations of Dirichlet, about the
continuous vis-a-vis the differential, where Dirichlet
is another giant of a man, in mathematics and thus all
of mathematical science, Poincare's "rough plane" then
for the zollfrei (or, equivalently enough, "freizoll"),
helps then when thinking about something like "Dirac's
positronic sea", about something like "Einstein's Poincare's
zoll-frei white-hole sea", effecting for a continuous smooth
manifold of space-time and its contents, why it's as well
a continuous reticulation, nowhere smooth, manifold of space-time.

Dirac's function: the Dirac delta, is not-a-real-function,
yet it has a particular real analytical character, and it's
used everywhere throughout analysis and is deeply embedded
in all the usual formalisms of physics.


It's often enough said that physics "the real theory" is at
least these things: a gauge theory.


Here that's simply enough after tendencies and propensities
of oscillation and restitution and attenuation and dissipation
with least-action least-gradient in a sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials: a potentialistic "the mechanics".

It's a continuum mechanics, ....



Re "The Atlas of Independence", for example.

https://sci.physics.relativity.narkive.com/N1ArU1xG/a-theory-and-the-atlas-of-independence

"

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 11:06 -0800
  Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 11:13 -0800
    Re: energy and mass Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-02-18 20:43 +0000
      Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:49 -0800
        Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:54 -0800
          Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:57 -0800
            Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 21:06 +1100
              Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 08:08 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 08:22 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 05:19 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 10:25 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 18:19 +1100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-20 10:56 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 14:52 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-21 11:19 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 22:54 +1100
              Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-02-20 14:16 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 11:56 -0800
          Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 21:02 +1100
        Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 20:52 +1100
          Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 11:56 +0100
            Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 23:39 +1100
              Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 14:13 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 02:47 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 21:41 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 18:26 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 11:35 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 23:09 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 13:30 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 03:20 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 11:35 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 03:43 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 11:37 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 15:09 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 21:47 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 15:29 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-21 11:19 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 23:12 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-21 14:58 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 05:59 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-22 17:04 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-22 14:19 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 02:25 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 11:01 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-22 23:40 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Edwin Lohmatikov <iiw@aoo.ru> - 2026-02-20 22:14 +0000
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-21 11:19 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Zamir Nasibullaev <rniz@zzrlus.ru> - 2026-02-21 18:53 +0000
                Shitting and pissing your own pants again? [A noiseless patient Spider] (Re: energy and mass) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-21 20:54 +0100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-19 08:54 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 18:32 +1100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-20 08:46 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 15:39 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 21:31 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 23:23 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 05:06 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-22 15:27 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 23:18 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-22 20:20 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 03:11 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 03:24 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 02:42 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 10:30 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 11:15 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 17:23 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 17:01 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 22:38 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 23:23 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-23 21:08 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 22:24 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-24 18:27 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 12:40 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 00:15 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 15:15 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 02:19 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 20:34 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 16:05 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-25 11:46 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-25 08:33 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-23 12:28 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 08:46 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 09:26 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-23 21:49 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 22:30 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 12:40 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-24 09:02 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 20:34 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 16:17 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-25 11:46 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-25 08:35 -0800
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-25 10:01 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-26 13:24 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-26 16:50 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-26 11:21 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-26 11:29 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-02-26 12:32 +0100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-26 13:24 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-02-26 18:33 +0100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-26 21:39 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Domingo Totolos <itot@go.gr> - 2026-02-26 21:01 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 06:05 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-26 15:32 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 06:41 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-26 18:11 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 10:40 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-26 20:12 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 11:52 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-28 10:14 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 00:04 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-01 10:08 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 20:40 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-03 09:53 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-03 23:14 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-05 11:57 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-06 01:43 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-05 16:03 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 08:48 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-05 22:03 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 18:20 -0800
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-06 11:01 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-07 16:48 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 21:56 -0800
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-07 04:16 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-08 00:31 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-07 07:08 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-08 00:29 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 08:42 -0800
                Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-03-05 18:48 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 12:32 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-06 05:57 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-08 09:40 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 01:37 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-10 09:19 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 08:56 -0700
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-10 09:13 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 09:21 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-10 20:04 +0100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-10 12:51 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 12:55 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 15:00 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 14:53 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-11 10:01 +0100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-11 07:54 -0700
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 18:45 +0100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-11 20:19 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 17:37 +1100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-12 07:59 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 16:41 +1100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-13 08:10 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 16:53 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-12 10:18 -0700
                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 16:48 +1100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-13 08:18 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:03 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 17:34 +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 02:29 +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 16:55 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-13 07:56 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 01:47 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-13 20:01 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:13 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 07:50 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 01:18 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 09:46 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:24 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 09:55 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:02 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 08:12 -0700
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-11 08:24 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 17:43 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 09:49 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:33 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:00 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:40 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 09:16 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 04:20 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 10:37 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 15:32 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 23:23 -0700
                Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-11 13:15 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 08:27 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 10:05 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 10:12 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 10:20 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 10:30 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 19:37 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 15:49 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 06:48 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 18:09 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 09:45 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 21:22 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 13:14 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 02:57 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 23:03 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 16:34 -0700
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 14:16 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 14:31 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Isais Kitamura <riiisia@imi.jp> - 2026-03-12 16:37 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:17 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:33 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:52 -0700
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 10:05 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:46 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:57 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:09 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 03:01 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:45 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 19:18 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 15:42 +1100
                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> - 2026-03-11 09:57 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-03-11 10:54 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 00:07 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-12 10:45 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 10:48 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:05 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 12:42 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 03:14 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 10:10 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-13 10:54 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:57 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:04 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-13 20:08 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:29 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 07:52 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:10 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:03 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:12 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 11:20 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 09:24 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 21:52 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 14:16 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-12 15:52 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:55 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 08:04 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 17:19 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-13 11:05 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:28 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:31 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:07 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:08 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:58 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:12 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:17 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:44 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:05 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:37 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:04 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:34 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 07:54 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-14 12:00 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 08:24 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 08:26 -0700
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 21:58 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 10:19 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 03:17 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:15 +0100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-13 22:05 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 00:06 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Larry Gulyás <ylcl@alyl.hu> - 2026-03-12 12:36 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 09:26 +0100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-13 15:08 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 09:39 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 03:34 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:18 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 02:58 -0700
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-01 13:13 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 06:51 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 07:06 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 17:05 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-01 10:46 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-28 10:03 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 00:17 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-01 10:26 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 21:03 +1100
                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 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 Ronnie Pantelakos <ina@snl.gr> - 2026-03-12 17:38 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-12 22:12 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Tathan Nagahama <gagngt@mmatata.jp> - 2026-03-12 22:11 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-13 01:47 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Cristobal Umehara <be@iu.jp> - 2026-03-13 16:50 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Jairo Pantelakos <soaonjo@iai.gr> - 2026-03-14 13:21 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-14 16:18 +0100
                GPS (was: energy and mass) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-14 16:23 +0100
                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 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 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
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-01 12:49 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-27 04:05 +1100
                Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-02-28 15:06 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 07:27 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 08:54 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-06 06:12 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-28 16:31 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 07:49 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-02-28 16:01 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 08:13 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 08:37 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-28 18:18 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-28 17:59 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 09:06 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-28 19:10 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-28 18:01 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-01 10:59 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-03 09:19 +0100
                Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-02-28 23:02 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-01 00:12 +0100
                Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-03-01 00:33 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 16:52 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-01 02:30 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 22:50 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-01 17:06 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 09:08 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-02 02:04 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-02 02:08 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 19:00 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-02 02:13 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 19:39 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 08:50 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 10:22 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Taylor Mészáros <motor@orkzmm.hu> - 2026-03-01 21:17 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-02 01:53 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Winford Balabolkin <od@dnwi.ru> - 2026-03-02 10:37 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-02 02:00 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 18:59 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-03 10:18 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-03 03:21 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-11 15:44 +0100
                Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-03-01 07:09 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-01 02:13 +0100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-01 10:45 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-01 23:57 +0100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-01 10:45 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-01 23:53 +0100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-01 10:45 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-25 08:32 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-24 18:52 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-24 02:45 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 12:40 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 00:32 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 15:15 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 02:31 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 20:34 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-24 14:53 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-27 17:42 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-27 10:43 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Jovany Márton <md@jjryoto.hu> - 2026-02-27 17:33 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-24 09:17 -0800
                Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-02-24 18:41 +0000
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 20:34 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-24 08:56 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-23 21:08 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 22:27 -0800
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 12:40 +0100
              Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-02-19 14:36 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 07:56 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 03:00 +1100
              Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 07:49 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 05:30 +1100
            Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 07:46 -0800
              Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 05:40 +1100
              Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 21:41 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 15:52 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-20 15:22 +0100
          Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-19 11:27 -0800
            Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 21:41 +0100
              Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-02-19 17:48 -0800
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-02-20 01:35 -0800
              Re: energy and mass Arie de Muijnck <noreply@ademu.nl> - 2026-02-20 08:19 +0100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 11:35 +0100
            Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-02-19 22:11 +0100
              Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-19 23:57 +0100
            Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 15:49 -0800
    Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 20:45 +1100
      Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 07:44 -0800
        Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 06:19 +1100
          Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 21:41 +0100
          Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 15:48 -0800
            Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 18:45 +1100
              Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 08:47 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 05:31 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 10:52 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 11:13 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 16:11 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 21:41 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 21:52 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 23:56 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 05:20 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 05:34 -0800
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-22 15:47 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-22 15:37 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-22 20:34 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 17:27 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 22:50 -0800

(Thread has 620 articles, showing 500 — browse group in flat view)

csiph-web