Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #576928 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-12 20:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2022-02-13 13:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 426 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:18 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 19:43 +0000
Crank Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 11:38 -0800
Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:48 +0100
Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 21:19 +0000
Re: Crank Dontknow perverses "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 15:21 -0800
Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-13 00:01 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 20:26 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 22:12 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 08:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 02:42 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 09:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 12:57 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-14 08:24 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 14:13 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-14 18:48 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:52 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-17 03:23 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 00:28 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-14 10:16 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:01 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-15 10:49 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 13:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 05:09 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-16 07:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 14:01 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-16 07:45 +0100
Cretin Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 22:54 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 13:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:27 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 13:57 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-18 07:40 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:27 +0000
Crank Thomas Heger admits he's a fool "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 10:53 -0800
Re: Crank Do'no admits he's a fool Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-19 10:44 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-16 13:12 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-19 17:05 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-21 07:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 13:34 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-22 08:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 16:23 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-23 09:30 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-23 14:21 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-24 07:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 13:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-24 22:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 22:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 23:18 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-24 17:34 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 22:44 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-25 07:53 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-25 03:12 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 00:34 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-25 13:05 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-26 08:52 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-26 11:44 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-26 22:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-26 16:43 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-27 08:59 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-27 05:18 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-27 16:56 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 09:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-01 08:08 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 12:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-01 10:44 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-01 08:22 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-02 08:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-02 11:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-02 11:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 08:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-03 09:57 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 02:36 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-04 15:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-06 10:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-06 14:07 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-06 21:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-07 14:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-07 18:21 +0100
Nazi piece of shit Thomas Heger exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 09:29 -0800
Re: Nazi piece of shit Thomas Heger exposed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-07 19:39 -0800
Re: Nazi piece of shit Dontkno exposed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 07:18 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 13:07 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 12:31 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-05 20:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 12:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-06 21:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 20:43 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-07 18:32 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 18:02 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 07:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 05:57 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-04 20:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-03 15:37 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-05 20:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-02 11:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 09:07 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-03 03:57 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 07:29 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-03 12:08 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 07:41 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-04 10:21 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-03 06:10 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 07:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-04 07:53 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-03 15:16 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 06:41 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:00 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 13:21 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 14:35 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-12 07:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-28 14:59 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 09:49 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-28 12:02 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 09:01 +0100
Nazi piece of shit Thomas Heger at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 07:15 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 19:11 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 02:29 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-27 09:13 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 03:46 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Nazi Thomas Heger swallows some shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 09:01 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-27 22:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 17:32 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-27 14:45 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 08:18 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-28 05:56 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 17:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-27 22:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 08:37 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-01 08:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 12:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-01 12:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-01 10:49 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 13:12 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-02 08:21 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 13:21 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 09:49 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-03 11:47 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 13:10 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-01 07:38 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-02 08:14 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-02 03:36 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 13:21 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 09:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 13:10 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:32 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 12:31 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-05 20:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 12:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-06 14:13 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 05:49 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 05:47 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-28 08:23 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 18:27 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-28 12:13 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-26 13:59 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-27 23:03 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 08:43 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-28 12:21 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 14:02 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-22 09:40 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 10:28 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-23 08:46 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-23 06:05 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-24 07:30 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 13:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-24 07:07 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-24 22:33 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 22:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-24 16:23 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-25 07:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 14:02 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 06:11 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-25 06:15 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-26 08:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 12:14 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-26 06:03 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-26 21:56 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-26 16:29 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-27 09:09 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-27 05:25 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 08:52 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 16:07 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 09:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-03 11:32 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:41 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-04 09:57 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-04 19:27 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-05 20:16 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-06 12:08 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-06 21:20 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-06 21:55 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 22:04 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-07 16:04 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-07 18:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-07 14:38 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 07:39 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-08 03:16 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 21:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 21:10 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-09 06:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 14:13 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-10 07:57 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-10 03:36 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-10 12:46 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 11:48 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-11 06:57 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 13:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-12 08:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 15:06 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-13 08:54 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-13 04:14 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-13 10:11 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-13 20:35 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 10:33 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 13:37 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 07:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 13:54 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 18:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 10:09 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 10:01 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 07:40 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 10:36 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 20:37 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 07:43 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 10:07 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 06:57 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 18:01 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 09:21 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 13:10 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 08:20 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 12:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 20:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 22:07 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-22 09:21 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 09:41 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-11 16:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 11:06 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-12 08:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-12 15:24 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 08:09 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-12 17:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 08:37 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 02:32 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 21:08 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-13 09:13 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 13:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 13:50 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 22:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:13 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-14 12:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 05:29 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 10:46 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 11:58 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 07:47 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 14:17 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 18:37 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 08:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-16 11:01 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 05:07 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:16 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-16 16:37 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-16 22:02 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 07:47 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-17 10:24 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 07:47 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 18:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 10:50 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-12 21:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-13 00:06 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-13 09:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 12:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 04:58 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 13:01 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-13 14:39 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 11:00 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 12:27 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 08:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 10:36 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 14:19 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Buddy Good <erv@ervn.ni> - 2022-03-15 19:14 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-22 09:11 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-22 17:31 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-25 00:31 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-25 08:16 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-14 21:00 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 08:54 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-17 19:59 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-17 15:02 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 06:46 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 03:18 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 07:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-15 11:39 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 07:54 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-16 03:16 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:09 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-16 10:55 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-17 13:48 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 08:16 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-18 13:05 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 07:50 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-19 13:05 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-20 08:47 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-20 13:04 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 08:27 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-21 11:13 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 20:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-22 19:32 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-22 17:09 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-15 11:26 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-15 14:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 14:22 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-15 22:14 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 08:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-14 19:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 08:03 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-15 10:39 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 17:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 12:24 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 08:02 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:16 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 07:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 08:26 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-16 10:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 08:07 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-17 14:59 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 06:24 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 03:25 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 08:05 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 00:20 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 09:25 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 15:35 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-19 15:28 +0000
Cretin Richard Lengrand at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 10:13 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-20 08:41 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 14:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 15:14 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 21:31 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-20 22:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-20 22:23 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 08:56 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-21 11:52 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 04:43 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 21:26 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-22 22:40 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:55 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-23 11:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-24 08:54 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-24 15:00 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-25 08:25 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-25 15:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 07:39 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-26 10:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Takabe Matsumura <tamu@frdesn.jp> - 2022-03-24 17:35 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-14 12:18 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 08:24 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 17:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-22 09:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-08 19:15 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-08 11:10 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 21:17 +0100
Nazi cretin Thomas Heger eats shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 14:50 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-09 15:40 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-10 08:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-10 10:40 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-11 07:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 13:52 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-12 08:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-12 22:29 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-12 20:43 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Jessie Breit <jbre@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-13 20:15 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 08:27 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 03:42 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 08:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 01:17 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-19 10:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 20:30 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-19 17:32 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 22:45 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-19 12:52 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-18 13:14 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-12 22:46 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 16:51 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-13 01:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 07:35 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-03 12:09 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 15:33 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 21:42 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 16:35 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-13 09:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-13 19:08 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 17:09 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 23:04 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 09:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 05:54 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 10:35 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:31 -0800
Page 18 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 22 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e99641f-feac-45f3-a899-bbf52cf1ada4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580340 |
On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 17:19:25 UTC+1, Python wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > > > Den 15.03.2022 08:03, skrev Thomas Heger: > >> Am 14.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > >> > >>> This makes it obvious that 'ε' is the charge of an electron. > >>> > >>> Einstein's equation is: (with M instead of N) > >>> > >>> d²y/dt² = -ε⋅v⋅M⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c = F/m⋅γ > >>> > >> > >> But this was NOT, what Einstein had written. > >> he wrote > >> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*(1−v²/c²) > > > > The missing sqrt is probably a typo? > > > > Einstein wrote: > > -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*√(1−v²/c²) > The typo has been introduced by Thomas, we can check both Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, and trying to pretend a wise one. Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic? See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory, it has to be formulable in the language of the theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for that, poor stinker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 08:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9dgc1F311pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580340 |
Am 15.03.2022 um 17:19 schrieb Python: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> >> Den 15.03.2022 08:03, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am 14.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>>> This makes it obvious that 'ε' is the charge of an electron. >>>> >>>> Einstein's equation is: (with M instead of N) >>>> >>>> d²y/dt² = -ε⋅v⋅M⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c = F/m⋅γ >>>> >>> >>> But this was NOT, what Einstein had written. >>> he wrote >>> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*(1−v²/c²) >> >> The missing sqrt is probably a typo? >> >> Einstein wrote: >> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*√(1−v²/c²) > > The typo has been introduced by Thomas, we can check both > the original paper: Sorry for the missing square root. It was, of course my error, but not intentional. Typos do occasionally occur. I sually try to be correct, but unfortunately I produce an error or two per message on average. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 10:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0sddb$32c$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580387 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > > Typos do occasionally occur. I sually try to be correct, but > unfortunately I produce an error or two per message on average. > > TH > > Exactly. When you can exhibit more care to reduce that to 0.05, then perhaps you will have something to say. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 21:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9ev2hF43vuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580398 |
Am 16.03.2022 um 11:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >> >> Typos do occasionally occur. I sually try to be correct, but >> unfortunately I produce an error or two per message on average. >> >> TH >> >> > > Exactly. When you can exhibit more care to reduce that to 0.05, then > perhaps you will have something to say. > This old laptop is a little outdated. I use it only for mail and usenet, hence age does not matter. But unfortunately I have no spellchecker, because that is not available for this operating system anymore. Therefore, you should forgive me, if I make some errors, especially as I'm writing in a second language. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0tja7$14ds$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580433 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 16.03.2022 um 11:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> >>> >>> Typos do occasionally occur. I sually try to be correct, but >>> unfortunately I produce an error or two per message on average. >>> >>> TH >>> >>> >> >> Exactly. When you can exhibit more care to reduce that to 0.05, then >> perhaps you will have something to say. >> > > > This old laptop is a little outdated. I use it only for mail and usenet, > hence age does not matter. But unfortunately I have no spellchecker, > because that is not available for this operating system anymore. > > Therefore, you should forgive me, if I make some errors, especially as > I'm writing in a second language. > > > TH > > Spelling errors are not what I was talking about. Neither were you, truth be told. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-17 07:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9g44fFaodhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580440 |
Am 16.03.2022 um 22:03 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Am 16.03.2022 um 11:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Typos do occasionally occur. I sually try to be correct, but >>>> unfortunately I produce an error or two per message on average. >>>> >>>> TH >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Exactly. When you can exhibit more care to reduce that to 0.05, then >>> perhaps you will have something to say. >>> >> >> >> This old laptop is a little outdated. I use it only for mail and usenet, >> hence age does not matter. But unfortunately I have no spellchecker, >> because that is not available for this operating system anymore. To use old laptops is often difficult, because some cannot be updated to more recent verions of windows, because there are no drivers available. But to use old versions of Windows is actually risky, if you do something serious. Now it gets difficult to find something useful to do for such a piece. But writing email is not particularily dangerous and certainly useful. And it does not require a lot of computational power. >> Therefore, you should forgive me, if I make some errors, especially as >> I'm writing in a second language. >> >> >> TH >> >> > > Spelling errors are not what I was talking about. Neither were you, truth > be told. > I know. My 'error' is apparently my existence. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 08:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9dhovF39soU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580313 |
Am 15.03.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > > > Den 15.03.2022 08:03, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am 14.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >>> This makes it obvious that 'ε' is the charge of an electron. >>> >>> Einstein's equation is: (with M instead of N) >>> >>> d²y/dt² = -ε⋅v⋅M⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c = F/m⋅γ >>> >> >> But this was NOT, what Einstein had written. >> he wrote >> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*(1−v²/c²) > > The missing sqrt is probably a typo? > > Einstein wrote: > -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*√(1−v²/c²) > > The only difference is that I - as stated - > used M in stead of N for the magnetic field. The other difference was the missing minus sign. what was the reason to replace N with M anyhow? I didn't like 'N', too, because that was the z-component of the magnetic field strength vector, but would prefer something like B_z or similar. >> >> This contains are relatively complicated error (besides of all the >> other ones). >> >> The error is, that 'current' and 'electrons flow' are not the same thing. > > This is meaningless. > There is no 'current' and no 'electrons flow' in this equation, > it is acceleration of a single electron, so what 'error' are > you babbling about? The flow of the electrons in a wire is VERY slow, while what we call 'current' is moving in the opposite direction at light speed. But what do you have against' electron flow' if the flight of an electron through a magnetic field is considered? >> >> Electrons are relatively slow, hence the term '(1-v²/c²)' is almost >> zero for electrons. > > I can assure you that most of the electron's moving in magnetic fields > are far from 'relatively slow'. Well, the real particles are relatively slow, e.g. in a wire. Their velocity is much greater in vacuum, but no medium was mentioned here. > What you now are saying is that when Einstein should show > the relativistic effects caused by the speed of an electron > moving in an electric field, then he should ignore the relativistic > effects because the electron is slow. Actually the title mentioned slow electrons. also "...of the electron, and m the mass of the electron, as long as its motion is slow." So we have clearly a case, which involved relatively slow electrons. Lets take the case of 1m/h for the electrons velocity. This is actually slower than a snail, but some electrons do not move much faster. This would make (1/(sqrt(1- v²/c²)) - 1) getting very close to zero. And I think, that would make the equation on page 22 invalid. But you could try to convince me from the opposite, if you like >> >> Also the work done, if you push an electron into a repelling field >> does not depend on the velocity of the electron (for very slow >> electrons), what would make the equation on page 22 wrong, too. > > You are indeed very ignorant when you believe so. > The EM-radiation from a charged particle moving > in a magnetic field increases very much with the speed > of the particle. Sure. But I took this very simple example: there is a homogenous electric field, which is created by a negativly charged metal plate. Now we push some amount of negative charge against the repelling force into the field. This requires work, hence should be covered by the equation about work on page 22. v is now the velocity of the charged probe in respect to the charged metal plate. But the work is not supposed to depend on the velocity of the probe (in this slow realm), while the equation does actually contain v. It also produces invalid results in the very slow realm. > This is what limits the speed of the particle in an accelerator. > When the charged particles are bent by magnetic fields, kinetic > energy will be lost due to EM-radiation. The loss will increase > with the speed. When the lost energy in the bends, are equal > to the gained energy in the RF-cavities, the speed has reached its > limit. > > ----------------------- > > All you have written in this post is nonsense. > It isn't a single sensible argument for anything. > I do not agree here. If you think so, than you could try invalidate my arguments from above first. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 10:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <I4iYJ.229489$833.30821@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #580389 |
Den 16.03.2022 08:26, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am 15.03.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> >> Den 15.03.2022 08:03, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am 14.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>>> This makes it obvious that 'ε' is the charge of an electron. >>>> >>>> Einstein's equation is: (with M instead of N) >>>> >>>> d²y/dt² = -ε⋅v⋅M⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c = F/m >>> >>> But this was NOT, what Einstein had written. >>> he wrote >>> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*(1−v²/c²) >> >> The missing sqrt is probably a typo? >> >> Einstein wrote: >> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*√(1−v²/c²) >> >> The only difference is that I - as stated - >> used M in stead of N for the magnetic field. > > The other difference was the missing minus sign. > That is your second error. You can obviously move the minus sign to the other side, but you can't have it on both sides! Einstein's equation was: -d²y/dt² = ε⋅v⋅N⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c The Equation I wrote was correct! You keep writing nonsense which is utterly irrelevant to the issue: Is Einstein's equation correct? Like this:> The flow of the electrons in a wire is VERY slow, while what we call > 'current' is moving in the opposite direction at light speed. And this: > Well, the real particles are relatively slow, e.g. in a wire. > > Their velocity is much greater in vacuum, but no medium was mentioned here. > And this: > there is a homogenous electric field, which is created by a negativly > charged metal plate. > > Now we push some amount of negative charge against the repelling force > into the field. > > This requires work, hence should be covered by the equation about work > on page 22. > > v is now the velocity of the charged probe in respect to the charged > metal plate. > > But the work is not supposed to depend on the velocity of the probe (in > this slow realm), while the equation does actually contain v. > > It also produces invalid results in the very slow realm. Good grief!! You are babbling a lot of nonsense which have no relation whatsoever to the issue. You have claimed that there are many errors in Einstein's equation, but you have yet to give a single rational argument to substantiate your claim. So let us revert to the issue. You have now an opportunity to point out what exactly what is wrong in Einstein's equation. =============================================================== Please address the following. If you find errors in some of the equations, please explain exactly what the error is, and what the correct equation should be. Please don't clutter it up with irrelevant comments. Answer the questions only. Let us have a large area with a constant vertical magnetic field B⃗. Let the velocity v⃗(t) of the electron be horizontal. We will assume that the electron all the time is in this area. The force F⃗(t) on the electron will be: F⃗(t) = -ε⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗)/c (the c is due to the CGS units) (1) where -ε = electron charge, The acceleration of the electron will be: a⃗(t) = F⃗(t)/(m⋅γ(t)) = -(ε/c)⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗)/(m⋅γ(t)) (2) where γ(t) = 1/√(1−v(t)²/c²) and m = electron mass Question #1: ------------ Do you understand that equation (2) is correct? If not, explain exactly what is wrong, and show what you think the equation should be. Since a⃗(t) and F⃗(t) always are parallel, we can equally well write the equation: -a(t) = ε⋅v(t)⋅B⋅√(1−v(t)²/c²)/m⋅c = v(t)²/R(t) (3) where a(t) = |a⃗(t)| , v(t) = |v⃗(t)| and B = |B⃗| Question #2: ------------ Do you understand that no information from (2) is lost in (3)? If you think that some information is lost, explain exactly what. R(t) = (mc²/ε)⋅((v(t)/c)/√(1−v(t)²/c²))⋅(1/B) (4) Note that R(t) = constant⋅v(t)⋅γ(t) Question #3: ------------ Do you understand that the curvature radius R is known at any point on the trajectory where the speed is known? If not, what do you think the R should be when v is known? Let's review Einstein's equations and compare them to equation (3) and (4) above. Einstein used a Cartesian coordinates where the F⃗ and thus the acceleration was parallel to the y-axis, v⃗ was parallel to the x-axis and B⃗ was parallel to the z-axis. -d²y/dt² = ε⋅v⋅B⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c = v²/R (5) Since we know that the acceleration along the y-axis will make the velocity bend away from the x-axis and the acceleration will bend away from the y-axis equation (5) will be strictly valid only at the instant when v⃗ is parallel to the x-axis. R = (mc²/ε)⋅((v/c)/√(1−v²/c²))⋅(1/B) (6) Question #4: ------------ Do you understand that even if (5) is strictly valid at one instant, (6) is still generally valid so we can find the curvature radius R at any point of the trajectory when the the speed is known? If not, please show what you think the function R = f(v) should be. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 21:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9f06lF4bguU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580394 |
Am 16.03.2022 um 10:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > > > Den 16.03.2022 08:26, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am 15.03.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>> >>> Den 15.03.2022 08:03, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> >>>>> This makes it obvious that 'ε' is the charge of an electron. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's equation is: (with M instead of N) >>>>> >>>>> d²y/dt² = -ε⋅v⋅M⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c = F/m > >>>> >>>> But this was NOT, what Einstein had written. >>>> he wrote >>>> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*(1−v²/c²) >>> >>> The missing sqrt is probably a typo? >>> >>> Einstein wrote: >>> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*√(1−v²/c²) >>> >>> The only difference is that I - as stated - >>> used M in stead of N for the magnetic field. >> >> The other difference was the missing minus sign. >> > > That is your second error. > You can obviously move the minus sign to > the other side, but you can't have it on both sides! > > Einstein's equation was: > -d²y/dt² = ε⋅v⋅N⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c > > The Equation I wrote was correct! Ok, my fault. I have actually overlooked the minus sign on the right side. Sorry! > > You keep writing nonsense which is utterly irrelevant > to the issue: Is Einstein's equation correct? > > Like this:> The flow of the electrons in a wire is VERY slow, while what > we call >> 'current' is moving in the opposite direction at light speed. Only this is not nonsense. The electrons in a wire are quite slow, while the current flows with light speed and actually into the opposite direction than the electrons move. > And this: >> Well, the real particles are relatively slow, e.g. in a wire. >> >> Their velocity is much greater in vacuum, but no medium was mentioned >> here. >> Einstein was talking about 'Electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Therefore he addressed the real material particles themselves, not the stuff we usualy call 'electricity'. Such particles are called 'electrons'. These particles flow through wires and carry electric energy with them. But neither energy nor current are actually 'carried' in any meaningful way by them (like in a little bucket). Instead 'electrons' denote certain states of the underlying fields, which behave in a different way than particles do. > And this: >> there is a homogenous electric field, which is created by a negativly >> charged metal plate. >> >> Now we push some amount of negative charge against the repelling force >> into the field. >> >> This requires work, hence should be covered by the equation about work >> on page 22. >> >> v is now the velocity of the charged probe in respect to the charged >> metal plate. >> >> But the work is not supposed to depend on the velocity of the probe >> (in this slow realm), while the equation does actually contain v. >> >> It also produces invalid results in the very slow realm. > > Good grief!! > > You are babbling a lot of nonsense which have no > relation whatsoever to the issue. It has, of course, something to do with the issue! Einstein wrote a certain equation about the work of an electron moving in an electric field. I wrote, the equation is wrong, because it is not applicable for a very simple situation, because for very slow electron the term '(1-v²/c²)' becomes zero, while the work W does not. For this looks like an error. > You have claimed that there are many errors in Einstein's > equation, but you have yet to give a single rational > argument to substantiate your claim. I have just written rational explanations for my claims about just two equations. I do accept the explanation, that right hand rule and common practise to name the axes would allow the equation on page 23, even if the cross for cross product was missing. But I think, the equation on page 22 is wrong for the given reason. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0tja7$14ds$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580434 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 16.03.2022 um 10:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> >> Den 16.03.2022 08:26, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am 15.03.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> >>>> >>>> Den 15.03.2022 08:03, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> >>>>>> This makes it obvious that 'ε' is the charge of an electron. >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein's equation is: (with M instead of N) >>>>>> >>>>>> d²y/dt² = -ε⋅v⋅M⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c = F/m >> >>>>> >>>>> But this was NOT, what Einstein had written. >>>>> he wrote >>>>> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*(1−v²/c²) >>>> >>>> The missing sqrt is probably a typo? >>>> >>>> Einstein wrote: >>>> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*√(1−v²/c²) >>>> >>>> The only difference is that I - as stated - >>>> used M in stead of N for the magnetic field. >>> >>> The other difference was the missing minus sign. >>> >> >> That is your second error. >> You can obviously move the minus sign to >> the other side, but you can't have it on both sides! >> >> Einstein's equation was: >> -d²y/dt² = ε⋅v⋅N⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c >> >> The Equation I wrote was correct! > > Ok, my fault. I have actually overlooked the minus sign on the right side. See? When you can get this kind of error down to 0.05 per post, then maybe you will have something to say. > > Sorry! > >> >> You keep writing nonsense which is utterly irrelevant >> to the issue: Is Einstein's equation correct? >> >> Like this:> The flow of the electrons in a wire is VERY slow, while what >> we call >>> 'current' is moving in the opposite direction at light speed. > > Only this is not nonsense. > > The electrons in a wire are quite slow, while the current flows with > light speed and actually into the opposite direction than the electrons > move. > > >> And this: >>> Well, the real particles are relatively slow, e.g. in a wire. >>> >>> Their velocity is much greater in vacuum, but no medium was mentioned >>> here. >>> > > > Einstein was talking about 'Electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > > Therefore he addressed the real material particles themselves, not the > stuff we usualy call 'electricity'. > > Such particles are called 'electrons'. These particles flow through > wires and carry electric energy with them. > > But neither energy nor current are actually 'carried' in any meaningful > way by them (like in a little bucket). Instead 'electrons' denote > certain states of the underlying fields, which behave in a different way > than particles do. > > > >> And this: >>> there is a homogenous electric field, which is created by a negativly >>> charged metal plate. >>> >>> Now we push some amount of negative charge against the repelling force >>> into the field. >>> >>> This requires work, hence should be covered by the equation about work >>> on page 22. >>> >>> v is now the velocity of the charged probe in respect to the charged >>> metal plate. >>> >>> But the work is not supposed to depend on the velocity of the probe >>> (in this slow realm), while the equation does actually contain v. >>> >>> It also produces invalid results in the very slow realm. >> >> Good grief!! >> >> You are babbling a lot of nonsense which have no >> relation whatsoever to the issue. > > > It has, of course, something to do with the issue! > > Einstein wrote a certain equation about the work of an electron moving > in an electric field. > > I wrote, the equation is wrong, because it is not applicable for a very > simple situation, because for very slow electron the term '(1-v²/c²)' > becomes zero, while the work W does not. > > For this looks like an error. > > >> You have claimed that there are many errors in Einstein's >> equation, but you have yet to give a single rational >> argument to substantiate your claim. > > > I have just written rational explanations for my claims about just two > equations. > > I do accept the explanation, that right hand rule and common practise to > name the axes would allow the equation on page 23, even if the cross for > cross product was missing. > > But I think, the equation on page 22 is wrong for the given reason. > > > ... > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-17 08:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9g51aFatahU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580441 |
Am 16.03.2022 um 22:03 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Am 16.03.2022 um 10:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>> >>> Den 16.03.2022 08:26, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am 15.03.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Den 15.03.2022 08:03, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This makes it obvious that 'ε' is the charge of an electron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein's equation is: (with M instead of N) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> d²y/dt² = -ε⋅v⋅M⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c = F/m >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But this was NOT, what Einstein had written. >>>>>> he wrote >>>>>> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*(1−v²/c²) >>>>> >>>>> The missing sqrt is probably a typo? >>>>> >>>>> Einstein wrote: >>>>> -d²y/dt² = -ε/m *v/c* N*√(1−v²/c²) >>>>> >>>>> The only difference is that I - as stated - >>>>> used M in stead of N for the magnetic field. >>>> >>>> The other difference was the missing minus sign. >>>> >>> >>> That is your second error. >>> You can obviously move the minus sign to >>> the other side, but you can't have it on both sides! >>> >>> Einstein's equation was: >>> -d²y/dt² = ε⋅v⋅N⋅√(1−v²/c²)/m⋅c >>> >>> The Equation I wrote was correct! >> >> Ok, my fault. I have actually overlooked the minus sign on the right side. > > See? When you can get this kind of error down to 0.05 per post, then maybe > you will have something to say. Errors are actually also communication. Therefore, a speach which consists of 100% intentional lies is also a speach. But usually I try to avoid intentional lies and try to sieve out errors. Here I tried to discuss the paper of Einstein called 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', which contains in my oppinion several hundred errors. Whether or not they are intentional, I cannot say. But we could think about that assumption, too, and could try to estimate, which entity would or actually could create such a piece, which should be regarded as disinformation and if that would be a plausible assumption. To estimate the plausibility of an assumption, it is useful to setup such an assumption and then try to figure out, if it would make sense. Here my assumption (or 'hypothesis') to explore would go similar like this: Einstein had never written the text in question. That was delivered by the usual provider of disinformation (called 'M'). The alleged author was actually an agent for some unknown agency and had the duty to spy on German, Hungarian, Italian, French and American pyhsicists about the new developing atomic energy. This is the hypothessis, which we need to test and compare that with known facts. The physicists were: Leo Szillard Marie Curie Liese Meitner Otto Hahn Enrico Fermi Henri Poincaré Edward Teller Max Planck Princton University ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-17 14:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <E8HYJ.174093$NCX1.145967@fx08.ams4> |
| In reply to | #580434 |
Den 16.03.2022 21:38, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am 16.03.2022 um 10:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> >> You keep writing nonsense which is utterly irrelevant >> to the issue: Is Einstein's equation correct? >> >> Like this: >>> The flow of the electrons in a wire is VERY slow, while what we call >>> 'current' is moving in the opposite direction at light speed. Here we go again! > > Only this is not nonsense. > > The electrons in a wire are quite slow, while the current flows with > light speed and actually into the opposite direction than the electrons > move. This is UTTER nonsense! It is also irrelevant to the issue: "Is Einstein's equation on page 23 correct?" Below you are trying to defend your irrelevant nonsense. It is still irrelevant nonsense. <snip> Yet another example of your utter nonsense: > > Einstein wrote a certain equation about the work of an electron moving in an electric field. W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) W = 0 when v = 0, OBVIOUSLY. > > I wrote, the equation is wrong, because it is not applicable for a very simple situation, because for very slow electron the term '(1-v²/c²)' becomes zero, while the work W does not. Read what you wrote. Do I have to explain your gigantic blunder? :-D > I do accept the explanation, that right hand rule and common practise to > name the axes would allow the equation on page 23, even if the cross for > cross product was missing. So now you are admitting that equation in which you found so many errors is correct after all? I don't believe you. I think you simply never understood the equation, and still don't. So please read my detailed explanation of the equation below, and answer the questions. > > But I think, the equation on page 22 is wrong for the given reason. Not a very successive attempt to divert the attention from the issue: the equation on page 23, was it? :-D ------------------------------------------------------------ Let's analyse the equation on page 23. Please don't clutter it up with irrelevant comments. Answer the questions only. In the beginning of paragraph 10 Einstein defines what he means with 'electron'. It is a charged particle with the charge ε. Note that if the charge is negative, then ε is negative. (Previously I said that the charge of the electron was -ε. That was wrong. The charge of the electron is ε). Einstein writes: "We calculate the radius of curvature of the path of the electron when a magnetic force N is present (as the only deflective force), acting perpendicularly to the velocity of the electron." Let us place these vectors in a Cartesian coordinate system. We can see from paragraph 9 that 'N' is the magnetic field in the z-direction. We will in the following use B⃗ for the magnetic field. We can see from the equation that the acceleration (-d²y/dt²) and thus the force is in the negative y-direction. And since the velocity is perpendicular to both, it is in the x-direction. We will use the vector notation: A⃗ = (Ax,Ay,Az) So this is what Einstein defined the vectors to be: v⃗ = (vₓ,0 , 0) F⃗ = ( 0,Fy, 0) (where Fy < 0 B⃗ = ( 0, 0,Bz) The Lorentz force on a charged particle is: F⃗ = ε(E⃗ + (v⃗ X B⃗)) (SI) Where ε is the charge of the particle. Since the electric field E⃗ = 0, we get: F⃗ = ε(v⃗ X B⃗) (SI) F⃗ = ε(v⃗ X B⃗)/c (CGS) (1) The right-hand rule give the force: F⃗ = (0,-εvB/c, 0) where v = |v⃗| and B = |B⃗| Question #1: ------------- Do you understand that this is the force on the electron? If not, show what you think the force should be. ========================================================= The acceleration of the electron will be: a⃗ = F⃗/mγ where m is the mass of the electron, γ = 1/√(1−v²/c²) a⃗ = (0,-εvB/mcγ,0) |a⃗| = -εvB/mcγ (2a) Question #2: ------------- Do you understand that this is the acceleration on the electron? If not, show what you think the acceleration should be. ================================================================= Since we know that the force and the acceleration is in the negative y-direction, we have: |a⃗| = d²y/dt² (2b) So the equation becomes: -(2b) = -(2a) -d²y/dt² = εvB/mcγ (3) (This is Einstein's equation) Question #3: ------------- Do you now understand that this equation is correct? If not, show what you think the equation should should be. ================================================================= Now to the curvature radius. If a particle is moving in a circle with constant speed v with radius R, then the centripetal acceleration is v²/R. The curvature radius at any point of the circle is R. If a particle is moving along any curve, the centripetal acceleration at a point on the curve is still v²/R, where v is the speed of a particle and R is per definition the curvature radius at that point. Example: Satellite in elliptic orbit: Semi major axis a, eccentricity e. The curvature radius at the perigee is R = a(1-e), and at the apogee R = a(1+e). The curvature radius will be different at different points of the orbit. So in our case we get: v²/R = εvB/mcγ R = mvcγ/εB (4) or, as Einstein wrote it: R = (mc²/ε)⋅((v/c)/√(1−v²/c²))⋅(1/B) (5) Question #4: ------------- Do you now understand that this equation always will give the curvature radius of at the point of the If not, show what you think the equation should should be. ================================================================= -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-18 06:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9ijcvFpfpjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580484 |
Am 17.03.2022 um 14:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > > > Den 16.03.2022 21:38, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am 16.03.2022 um 10:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>> >>> You keep writing nonsense which is utterly irrelevant >>> to the issue: Is Einstein's equation correct? >>> >>> Like this: >>>> The flow of the electrons in a wire is VERY slow, while what we call >>>> 'current' is moving in the opposite direction at light speed. > > Here we go again! >> >> Only this is not nonsense. >> >> The electrons in a wire are quite slow, while the current flows with >> light speed and actually into the opposite direction than the >> electrons move. > > This is UTTER nonsense! No there exists actually a very good video about the relation between current and electrons flow in a youtube channel called 'Veritassium': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY I also recommend to study 'Poynting vectors'. > > It is also irrelevant to the issue: > "Is Einstein's equation on page 23 correct?" Actually I was talking about the equation on page 22. The equation on page 23 is incorrect, because it is not a vector equation (what it should be). ... >> >> Einstein wrote a certain equation about the work of an electron moving >> in an electric field. > > W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) W = 0 when v = 0, OBVIOUSLY. That is OBVIOUSLY nonsense! What are you trying to say with an equation saying 0=0 in the first place? It is also wrong to make velocity zero, because zero velocity means zero movement. It is, of course, true, that zero movement would not require any work. But what are you trying to use that insight for? >> >> I wrote, the equation is wrong, because it is not applicable for a >> very simple situation, because for very slow electron the term >> '(1-v²/c²)' becomes zero, while the work W does not. > > Read what you wrote. > Do I have to explain your gigantic blunder? :-D If you push a charged probe into an opposing field at a very slow speed, you still need to provide work. The components of work are: force and distance. These do not contain velocity. So, also slow work is actually work. But now slow approach in Einstein's equation would make work zero, because it contains a term with ((1-v²/c²) -1). This would become zero for v=0, (what would not take to much of mathematical knowledge.) So. how would you like to justify Einstein's equation? >> I do accept the explanation, that right hand rule and common practise >> to name the axes would allow the equation on page 23, even if the >> cross for cross product was missing. > > So now you are admitting that equation in which you found > so many errors is correct after all? ??? ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-18 03:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t11c4u$b20$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580534 |
On 3/18/2022 1:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.03.2022 um 14:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> >>> The electrons in a wire are quite slow, while the current flows with >>> light speed and actually into the opposite direction than the >>> electrons move. >> >> This is UTTER nonsense! > > No > > there exists actually a very good video about the relation between > current and electrons flow in a youtube channel called 'Veritassium': > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY > > I also recommend to study 'Poynting vectors'. True but not at all relevant to the discussion. > >> >> It is also irrelevant to the issue: >> "Is Einstein's equation on page 23 correct?" > > > Actually I was talking about the equation on page 22. > > The equation on page 23 is incorrect, because it is not a vector > equation (what it should be). > > > ... > >>> >>> Einstein wrote a certain equation about the work of an electron moving >>> in an electric field. >> >> W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) W = 0 when v = 0, OBVIOUSLY. > > > That is OBVIOUSLY nonsense! > > What are you trying to say with an equation saying 0=0 in the first place? He's saying if v=0, that equation evaluates to W=0. Isn't that obvious? >>> >>> I wrote, the equation is wrong, because it is not applicable for a >>> very simple situation, because for very slow electron the term >>> '(1-v²/c²)' becomes zero, while the work W does not. >> >> Read what you wrote. >> Do I have to explain your gigantic blunder? :-D > > > If you push a charged probe into an opposing field at a very slow speed, > you still need to provide work. [bla bla] He still doesn't see his blunder. > But now slow approach in Einstein's equation would make work zero, > because it contains a term with ((1-v²/c²) -1). Or maybe he did, but corrects it, hoping you won't notice. > > This would become zero for v=0, (what would not take to much of > mathematical knowledge.) > > So. how would you like to justify Einstein's equation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-19 08:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9ldliFbkopU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580541 |
Am 18.03.2022 um 08:25 schrieb Michael Moroney: > On 3/18/2022 1:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 17.03.2022 um 14:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>> >>>> The electrons in a wire are quite slow, while the current flows with >>>> light speed and actually into the opposite direction than the >>>> electrons move. >>> >>> This is UTTER nonsense! >> >> No >> >> there exists actually a very good video about the relation between >> current and electrons flow in a youtube channel called 'Veritassium': >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY >> >> I also recommend to study 'Poynting vectors'. > > True but not at all relevant to the discussion. >> >>> >>> It is also irrelevant to the issue: >>> "Is Einstein's equation on page 23 correct?" >> >> >> Actually I was talking about the equation on page 22. >> >> The equation on page 23 is incorrect, because it is not a vector >> equation (what it should be). >> >> >> ... >> >>>> >>>> Einstein wrote a certain equation about the work of an electron moving >>>> in an electric field. >>> >>> W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) W = 0 when v = 0, OBVIOUSLY. >> >> >> That is OBVIOUSLY nonsense! >> >> What are you trying to say with an equation saying 0=0 in the first >> place? > > He's saying if v=0, that equation evaluates to W=0. Isn't that obvious? Yes, 0=0. That is in fact true, but certainly not, what Einstein wanted to say. Einstein wrote an equation for the work done on/by an electron in an electric field: W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) 'v' is the velocity of the electron in respect to the field and m its mass. I wrote, the equation is nonsense, because for slow velocities, the term v²/c²->0 Now we can apply very small values for v, like 1mm/h and get still the same amount of work for the same field strength and distance. Therefore, the equation of Einstein doesn't even cover the very trivial case of slow motion. What he actually tried to say is diffulct to estimate, because his work 'W' does not contain anything similar to what you usually use the term 'work' for. 'work' is usually defined as work = force * distance (supposed both have the same direction). But neither force nor actually distance can be found in the eqaution. Therefore the equation is not just wrong, but total nonsense. > >>>> >>>> I wrote, the equation is wrong, because it is not applicable for a >>>> very simple situation, because for very slow electron the term >>>> '(1-v²/c²)' becomes zero, while the work W does not. >>> >>> Read what you wrote. >>> Do I have to explain your gigantic blunder? :-D >> >> >> If you push a charged probe into an opposing field at a very slow >> speed, you still need to provide work. > [bla bla] > > He still doesn't see his blunder. Well, actually Einstein is long dead. >> But now slow approach in Einstein's equation would make work zero, >> because it contains a term with ((1-v²/c²) -1). > > Or maybe he did, but corrects it, hoping you won't notice. What???? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-19 00:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb29a941-c831-4499-ac38-7e059b444faan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580575 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:05:26 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 18.03.2022 um 08:25 schrieb Michael Moroney: > > On 3/18/2022 1:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 17.03.2022 um 14:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > >>> > >>> > >>>> The electrons in a wire are quite slow, while the current flows with > >>>> light speed and actually into the opposite direction than the > >>>> electrons move. > >>> > >>> This is UTTER nonsense! > >> > >> No > >> > >> there exists actually a very good video about the relation between > >> current and electrons flow in a youtube channel called 'Veritassium': > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY > >> > >> I also recommend to study 'Poynting vectors'. > > > > True but not at all relevant to the discussion. > >> > >>> > >>> It is also irrelevant to the issue: > >>> "Is Einstein's equation on page 23 correct?" > >> > >> > >> Actually I was talking about the equation on page 22. > >> > >> The equation on page 23 is incorrect, because it is not a vector > >> equation (what it should be). > >> > >> > >> ... > >> > >>>> > >>>> Einstein wrote a certain equation about the work of an electron moving > >>>> in an electric field. > >>> > >>> W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) W = 0 when v = 0, OBVIOUSLY. > >> > >> > >> That is OBVIOUSLY nonsense! > >> > >> What are you trying to say with an equation saying 0=0 in the first > >> place? > > > > He's saying if v=0, that equation evaluates to W=0. Isn't that obvious? > Yes, 0=0. That is in fact true, but certainly not, what Einstein wanted > to say. > > Einstein wrote an equation for the work done on/by an electron in an > electric field: > W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) > 'v' is the velocity of the electron in respect to the field and m its mass. > > I wrote, the equation is nonsense, because for slow velocities, the term > v²/c²->0 And you really think nobody would have noticed this for 100 years? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-19 09:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9licjFcgirU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580576 |
Am 19.03.2022 um 08:20 schrieb JanPB: > On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:05:26 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 18.03.2022 um 08:25 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>> On 3/18/2022 1:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 17.03.2022 um 14:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The electrons in a wire are quite slow, while the current flows with >>>>>> light speed and actually into the opposite direction than the >>>>>> electrons move. >>>>> >>>>> This is UTTER nonsense! >>>> >>>> No >>>> >>>> there exists actually a very good video about the relation between >>>> current and electrons flow in a youtube channel called 'Veritassium': >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY >>>> >>>> I also recommend to study 'Poynting vectors'. >>> >>> True but not at all relevant to the discussion. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is also irrelevant to the issue: >>>>> "Is Einstein's equation on page 23 correct?" >>>> >>>> >>>> Actually I was talking about the equation on page 22. >>>> >>>> The equation on page 23 is incorrect, because it is not a vector >>>> equation (what it should be). >>>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein wrote a certain equation about the work of an electron moving >>>>>> in an electric field. >>>>> >>>>> W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) W = 0 when v = 0, OBVIOUSLY. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is OBVIOUSLY nonsense! >>>> >>>> What are you trying to say with an equation saying 0=0 in the first >>>> place? >>> >>> He's saying if v=0, that equation evaluates to W=0. Isn't that obvious? >> Yes, 0=0. That is in fact true, but certainly not, what Einstein wanted >> to say. >> >> Einstein wrote an equation for the work done on/by an electron in an >> electric field: >> W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) >> 'v' is the velocity of the electron in respect to the field and m its mass. >> >> I wrote, the equation is nonsense, because for slow velocities, the term >> v²/c²->0 > > And you really think nobody would have noticed this for 100 years? Yes, many did. There exist several thousand publications, which have criticised Einstein's text. They all got swept beyond the rug with an iron broom. But that's not quite the scientific method. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-19 15:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iTlZJ.684125$2c1.134482@fx04.ams4> |
| In reply to | #580575 |
Den 19.03.2022 08:05, skrev Thomas Heger: > > Einstein wrote an equation for the work done on/by an electron in an > electric field: > > W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) Correcting typo: W = mc²(1/√(1-v²/c²) - 1) > > 'v' is the velocity of the electron in respect to the field and m its mass. > > I wrote, the equation is nonsense, because for slow velocities, the term > v²/c²->0 > > Now we can apply very small values for v, like 1mm/h and get still the > same amount of work for the same field strength and distance. If the electron is braked to full stop in an electric field by a force εE for a distance d, then: d = mc²(1/√(1-v²/c²)-1)/εE From whence did you get the idiotic idea that the braking distance doesn't depend on the initial speed? > > Therefore, the equation of Einstein doesn't even cover the very trivial > case of slow motion. If the initial v is 1mm/h: d = mc²(4.3e-31)/εE From whence did you get the idiotic idea that the braking distance doesn't depend on the initial speed? > > What he actually tried to say is diffulct to estimate, because his work > 'W' does not contain anything similar to what you usually use the term > 'work' for. > > 'work' is usually defined as work = force * distance (supposed both have > the same direction). > > But neither force nor actually distance can be found in the eqaution. > > Therefore the equation is not just wrong, but total nonsense. > Good grief! When I see how utterly confused you are about elementary issues, I realize that you probably will have no chance to ever understand what you call Einstein's equation on page 23. But maybe you will try to read my explanation of said equation? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's analyse the equation on page 23. Please don't clutter it up with irrelevant comments. Answer the questions only. In the beginning of paragraph 10 Einstein defines what he means with 'electron'. It is a charged particle with the charge ε. Note that if the charge is negative, then ε is negative. (Previously I said that the charge of the electron was -ε. That was wrong. The charge of the electron is ε). Einstein writes: "We calculate the radius of curvature of the path of the electron when a magnetic force N is present (as the only deflective force), acting perpendicularly to the velocity of the electron." Let us place these vectors in a Cartesian coordinate system. We can see from paragraph 9 that 'N' is the magnetic field in the z-direction. We will in the following use B⃗ for the magnetic field. We can see from the equation that the acceleration (-d²y/dt²) and thus the force is in the negative y-direction. And since the velocity is perpendicular to both, it is in the x-direction. We will use the vector notation: A⃗ = (Ax,Ay,Az) So this is what Einstein defined the vectors to be: v⃗ = (vₓ,0 , 0) F⃗ = ( 0,Fy, 0) (where Fy < 0) B⃗ = ( 0, 0,Bz) The Lorentz force on a charged particle is: F⃗ = ε(E⃗ + (v⃗ X B⃗)) (SI) Where ε is the charge of the particle. Since the electric field E⃗ = 0, we get: F⃗ = ε(v⃗ X B⃗) (SI) F⃗ = ε(v⃗ X B⃗)/c (CGS - used by Einstein) (1) The right-hand rule give the force: F⃗ = (0,-εvB/c, 0) where v = |v⃗| and B = |B⃗| Question #1: ------------- Do you understand that this is the force on the electron? If not, show what you think the force should be. ========================================================= The acceleration of the electron will be: a⃗ = F⃗/mγ where m is the mass of the electron, γ = 1/√(1−v²/c²) a⃗ = (0,-εvB/mcγ,0) |a⃗| = -εvB/mcγ (2a) Question #2: ------------- Do you understand that this is the acceleration on the electron? If not, show what you think the acceleration should be. ================================================================= Since we know that the force and the acceleration is in the negative y-direction, we have: |a⃗| = d²y/dt² (2b) So the equation becomes: -(2b) = -(2a) -d²y/dt² = εvB/mcγ (3) (This is Einstein's equation) Question #3: ------------- Do you now understand that this equation is correct? If not, show what you think the equation should should be. ================================================================= Now to the curvature radius. If a particle is moving in a circle with constant speed v with radius R, then the centripetal acceleration is v²/R. The curvature radius at any point of the circle is R. If a particle is moving along any curve, the centripetal acceleration at a point on the curve is still v²/R, where v is the speed of a particle and R is per definition the curvature radius at that point. Example: Satellite in elliptic orbit around Earth: Semi major axis a, eccentricity e. The curvature radius at the perigee is R = a(1-e), and at the apogee R = a(1+e). The curvature radius will be different at different points of the orbit. In our case we get: v²/R = εvB/mcγ R = mvcγ/εB (4) or, as Einstein wrote it: R = (mc²/ε)⋅((v/c)/√(1−v²/c²))⋅(1/B) (5) Question #4: ------------- Do you now understand that this equation always will give the curvature radius at the point of the electron's path where the speed is v and magnetic field is B? If not, show what you think the equation should should be. ================================================================= -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-19 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6yXSJGv1J2IHlzpQKvuE3P5GQYo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #580592 |
Le 19/03/2022 à 15:35, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > > > Den 19.03.2022 08:05, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> Einstein wrote an equation for the work done on/by an electron in an >> electric field: >> >> W = mc²(1/(1-v²/c²) - 1) > > Correcting typo: W = mc²(1/√(1-v²/c²) - 1) Correcting by doctor Hachel (it's me). Ec=mc².[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1] R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-19 10:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Cretin Richard Lengrand at work |
| Message-ID | <499bfca1-db53-438a-9a66-cb4530fffcban@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580596 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Correcting by doctor-imbecile Hachel (it's me). > > Ec=mc².[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1] > > R.H. Do your patients know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web