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 | 2022-03-28 12:36 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 433 — 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' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-26 15:43 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:40 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-28 10:07 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 13:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-02 08:51 +0200
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' RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-26 12:30 -0700
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
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-28 12:36 +0300
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
| From | Buddy Good <erv@ervn.ni> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0qoj4$s2r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580348 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like in a >> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic >> field. > > And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Game Changer China to Buy Oil With Gold Backed Yuan https://www.bitchute.com/video/IQHYzh5WjYs/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-22 09:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9telvFs7hqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580348 |
Am 15.03.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Michael Moroney: > On 3/15/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 14.03.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>> Not a problem. >>> >>> 1) The electron could be flying along in a straight line when at t=0, >>> the (electro)magnetic field is switched on. >> >> ?????? >> >> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like in a >> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic field. >> >> > And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It has something to do with your comment, that the magnet could be switched on, once the electron enters at t=0. I wanted to mention, that this is not possible, because a sharp steplike increase of the magnetic field strength in a magnet is impossible. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-22 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t1df7p$12dg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580722 |
On 3/22/2022 4:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 15.03.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Michael Moroney: >> On 3/15/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 14.03.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>> Not a problem. >>>> >>>> 1) The electron could be flying along in a straight line when at t=0, >>>> the (electro)magnetic field is switched on. >>> >>> ?????? >>> >>> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like in a >>> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic field. >>> >>> >> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? > > > It has something to do with your comment, that the magnet could be > switched on, once the electron enters at t=0. > > I wanted to mention, that this is not possible, because a sharp steplike > increase of the magnetic field strength in a magnet is impossible. And...? There are no electromagnets with a perfect step function response. There are no such things as Einstein's trains which travel at 75% of c. The earth is not a perfect sphere. Two identical cars moving at 60 mph crashing into each other head-on won't collide at exactly 120 mph relative to each other. The two cars were never identical in the first place. The speed of light isn't c in the atmosphere. The bottoms of the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge are closer together than the top of those towers. Gravity isn't exactly "little g" everywhere on the earth's surface. With just about everything in physics and engineering, there are smaller effects from either other causes or imperfections in assumptions. Good scientists and engineers calculate the effects of ones of significance as well as potential measurement effects and determine if they affect the outcome or can be ignored. Modern papers have a figure for error, meaning what are the chances the outcome isn't due to what they are looking for but the error effects. And besides, Einstein was only looking at ONE POINT. It doesn't matter if the electromagnet has a poor rise time or even if it was connected to an AC source. All that matters is it is pointwise uniform and at right angles to the motion AT THE SINGLE POINT, and a set of axes can be constructed so the electron moves along the x axis at the point and the right angle magnetic field is aligned with the z axis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-23 09:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ja04ghFdj3cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580771 |
Am 22.03.2022 um 22:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: > On 3/22/2022 4:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 15.03.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>> On 3/15/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>> Not a problem. >>>>> >>>>> 1) The electron could be flying along in a straight line when at t=0, >>>>> the (electro)magnetic field is switched on. >>>> >>>> ?????? >>>> >>>> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like in a >>>> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic >>>> field. >>>> >>>> >>> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? >> >> >> It has something to do with your comment, that the magnet could be >> switched on, once the electron enters at t=0. >> >> I wanted to mention, that this is not possible, because a sharp >> steplike increase of the magnetic field strength in a magnet is >> impossible. > > And...? > > There are no electromagnets with a perfect step function response. But YOU wanted to switch the magnet one in that moment, when the electron passes by. > There are no such things as Einstein's trains which travel at 75% of c. Well, trains were not used in Einstein's text. They were used as means to illutrate SRT. > The earth is not a perfect sphere. Sure, but hardly anybody assumed it would be a sphere. Most people think, the Earth is roughly a ball (a sphere is the surface of a ball). > Two identical cars moving at 60 mph crashing into each other head-on > won't collide at exactly 120 mph relative to each other. Well, in collision we have two things: momentum and energy. momentum is mass times velocity. Because momentum is (apparently) conserved, an incomming mass had to be stopped by momentum provided by the target. But that is difficult, because material objects need to be accelerated before they reach a certain velocity. Therefore a fast object hitting a slow target creates tremendous acceleration upon the impact zone. That causes great forces, which spread out as shock waves and deform or disrupt the target. Momentum is now depending on mass and velocity. Kinetic energy is e_kin = 1/2 m* v², what is growing quadratic with velocity. That energy provides the power for destruction of the incoming object. > The two cars were never identical in the first place. > The speed of light isn't c in the atmosphere. Yes, because speed of light is depending on the medium. > The bottoms of the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge are closer together > than the top of those towers. Is this so? ... > > Good scientists and engineers calculate the effects of ones of > significance as well as potential measurement effects and determine if > they affect the outcome or can be ignored. Modern papers have a figure > for error, meaning what are the chances the outcome isn't due to what > they are looking for but the error effects. 'Good' was apparently meant analog to 'useful'. But usefullness isn't really a criterium for science, while it is in engineering. Engineers do not really want to know, how nature functions, but want their machine functioning. Physicists are doing the opposite. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-25 00:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t1jgj1$h34$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580802 |
On 3/23/2022 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.03.2022 um 22:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: >> On 3/22/2022 4:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 15.03.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>> On 3/15/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>> Not a problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) The electron could be flying along in a straight line when at t=0, >>>>>> the (electro)magnetic field is switched on. >>>>> >>>>> ?????? >>>>> >>>>> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like in a >>>>> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic >>>>> field. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? >>> >>> >>> It has something to do with your comment, that the magnet could be >>> switched on, once the electron enters at t=0. >>> >>> I wanted to mention, that this is not possible, because a sharp >>> steplike increase of the magnetic field strength in a magnet is >>> impossible. >> >> And...? >> >> There are no electromagnets with a perfect step function response. > > But YOU wanted to switch the magnet one in that moment, when the > electron passes by. No, YOU were whining that the electron wasn't going in a straight line before it was measured. Despite the irrelevance of that, you kept whining about it, so I offered that as a solution. Instead, you found *another* thing to whine about. > >> There are no such things as Einstein's trains which travel at 75% of c. > > Well, trains were not used in Einstein's text. They were used as means > to illutrate SRT. > >> The earth is not a perfect sphere. > > Sure, but hardly anybody assumed it would be a sphere. > > Most people think, the Earth is roughly a ball (a sphere is the surface > of a ball). > >> Two identical cars moving at 60 mph crashing into each other head-on >> won't collide at exactly 120 mph relative to each other. > > Well, in collision we have two things: momentum and energy. > > momentum is mass times velocity. Because momentum is (apparently) > conserved, an incomming mass had to be stopped by momentum provided by > the target. > > But that is difficult, because material objects need to be accelerated > before they reach a certain velocity. > > Therefore a fast object hitting a slow target creates tremendous > acceleration upon the impact zone. That causes great forces, which > spread out as shock waves and deform or disrupt the target. > > Momentum is now depending on mass and velocity. > > Kinetic energy is e_kin = 1/2 m* v², what is growing quadratic with > velocity. > > That energy provides the power for destruction of the incoming object. > >> The two cars were never identical in the first place. >> The speed of light isn't c in the atmosphere. > > Yes, because speed of light is depending on the medium. You missed the point, repeatedly. Nothing is perfect. The imperfections need to be accounted for, or dismissed as irrelevant (if they are) and this is something physicists and esp. engineers need to account for. Any good engineer knows that. > >> The bottoms of the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge are closer together >> than the top of those towers. > > Is this so? Yes, the earth is curved. "Down" is in a slightly different direction for the two towers. > > ... > >> >> Good scientists and engineers calculate the effects of ones of >> significance as well as potential measurement effects and determine if >> they affect the outcome or can be ignored. Modern papers have a figure >> for error, meaning what are the chances the outcome isn't due to what >> they are looking for but the error effects. > > 'Good' was apparently meant analog to 'useful'. > > But usefullness isn't really a criterium for science, while it is in > engineering. There you go spewing nonsense again. > > Engineers do not really want to know, how nature functions, but want > their machine functioning. Physicists are doing the opposite. > More nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-25 08:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ja58ifFdcdbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580964 |
Am 25.03.2022 um 05:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: > On 3/23/2022 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 22.03.2022 um 22:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>> On 3/22/2022 4:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 15.03.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>> On 3/15/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>>> Not a problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) The electron could be flying along in a straight line when at >>>>>>> t=0, >>>>>>> the (electro)magnetic field is switched on. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?????? >>>>>> >>>>>> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like in a >>>>>> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic >>>>>> field. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? >>>> >>>> >>>> It has something to do with your comment, that the magnet could be >>>> switched on, once the electron enters at t=0. >>>> >>>> I wanted to mention, that this is not possible, because a sharp >>>> steplike increase of the magnetic field strength in a magnet is >>>> impossible. >>> >>> And...? >>> >>> There are no electromagnets with a perfect step function response. >> >> But YOU wanted to switch the magnet one in that moment, when the >> electron passes by. > > No, YOU were whining that the electron wasn't going in a straight line > before it was measured. Despite the irrelevance of that, you kept > whining about it, so I offered that as a solution. Instead, you found > *another* thing to whine about. I wrote my annotations from the perspective of a hypothetical professor, who treated the text in question as the homework of a student. Now my aim was, to find every single error, whether important or not, even if it is a very small error. Now 'curved approach' is not 'streight approach', hence 'streight approach' must be an error or 'homogenous field' must be an error. One of them must be wrong, but which one, is not my concern, because I only wanted to mark the errors. What the correct solution is, was not my business, because I only returned the paper back to the student with a lot of remarks. I also gave him the advise, to try something else than theoretical physics. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-26 15:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t1nqc8$nhk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580967 |
On 3/25/2022 3:16 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.03.2022 um 05:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: >> On 3/23/2022 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 22.03.2022 um 22:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>> On 3/22/2022 4:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 15.03.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>> On 3/15/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>>>> Not a problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) The electron could be flying along in a straight line when at >>>>>>>> t=0, >>>>>>>> the (electro)magnetic field is switched on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic >>>>>>> field. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It has something to do with your comment, that the magnet could be >>>>> switched on, once the electron enters at t=0. >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to mention, that this is not possible, because a sharp >>>>> steplike increase of the magnetic field strength in a magnet is >>>>> impossible. >>>> >>>> And...? >>>> >>>> There are no electromagnets with a perfect step function response. >>> >>> But YOU wanted to switch the magnet one in that moment, when the >>> electron passes by. >> >> No, YOU were whining that the electron wasn't going in a straight line >> before it was measured. Despite the irrelevance of that, you kept >> whining about it, so I offered that as a solution. Instead, you found >> *another* thing to whine about. > > > I wrote my annotations from the perspective of a hypothetical professor, > who treated the text in question as the homework of a student. A *real* professor, on the other hand, wouldn't bother questioning things that may be difficult or impossible to actually do with a problem like that. As is evident in so many mechanics problems assuming frictionless surfaces or air resistance. > Now my aim was, to find every single error, whether important or not, > even if it is a very small error. A real professor doesn't consider such simplifications as an error. > I also gave him the advise, to try something else than theoretical physics. Your retarded hypothetical "professor" really is dumb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-27 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jablt6FkjkvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #581066 |
Am 26.03.2022 um 20:43 schrieb Michael Moroney: > On 3/25/2022 3:16 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 25.03.2022 um 05:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>> On 3/23/2022 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 22.03.2022 um 22:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>> On 3/22/2022 4:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 15.03.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>>> On 3/15/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>>>>> Not a problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) The electron could be flying along in a straight line when at >>>>>>>>> t=0, >>>>>>>>> the (electro)magnetic field is switched on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?????? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like >>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic >>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It has something to do with your comment, that the magnet could be >>>>>> switched on, once the electron enters at t=0. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wanted to mention, that this is not possible, because a sharp >>>>>> steplike increase of the magnetic field strength in a magnet is >>>>>> impossible. >>>>> >>>>> And...? >>>>> >>>>> There are no electromagnets with a perfect step function response. >>>> >>>> But YOU wanted to switch the magnet one in that moment, when the >>>> electron passes by. >>> >>> No, YOU were whining that the electron wasn't going in a straight line >>> before it was measured. Despite the irrelevance of that, you kept >>> whining about it, so I offered that as a solution. Instead, you found >>> *another* thing to whine about. >> >> >> I wrote my annotations from the perspective of a hypothetical >> professor, who treated the text in question as the homework of a student. > > A *real* professor, on the other hand, wouldn't bother questioning > things that may be difficult or impossible to actually do with a problem > like that. As is evident in so many mechanics problems assuming > frictionless surfaces or air resistance. Sure, but still you missed the point, because it was not my aim to immitate a real professor. I pretended to be a professor, what is more like in a role play. It is actually like this: if you would dress like superman, you certainly won't try to fly. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-28 10:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <h1e0K.821001$5u1.78079@fx13.ams4> |
| In reply to | #581109 |
Den 27.03.2022 19:40, skrev Thomas Heger: > > I pretended to be a professor, what is more like in a role play. > > It is actually like this: if you would dress like superman, you > certainly won't try to fly. > So you know how stupid your 'role play' is, but still do it? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-28 13:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1sc27$17fo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581109 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 26.03.2022 um 20:43 schrieb Michael Moroney: >> On 3/25/2022 3:16 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 25.03.2022 um 05:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>> On 3/23/2022 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 22.03.2022 um 22:31 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>> On 3/22/2022 4:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>> Am 15.03.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>>>> On 3/15/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>>>>>>>>> Not a problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) The electron could be flying along in a straight line when at >>>>>>>>>> t=0, >>>>>>>>>> the (electro)magnetic field is switched on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That IS a VERY serious problem, because VERY large magnets (like >>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>> synchroton), can take quite a while to build up a static magnetic >>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It has something to do with your comment, that the magnet could be >>>>>>> switched on, once the electron enters at t=0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wanted to mention, that this is not possible, because a sharp >>>>>>> steplike increase of the magnetic field strength in a magnet is >>>>>>> impossible. >>>>>> >>>>>> And...? >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no electromagnets with a perfect step function response. >>>>> >>>>> But YOU wanted to switch the magnet one in that moment, when the >>>>> electron passes by. >>>> >>>> No, YOU were whining that the electron wasn't going in a straight line >>>> before it was measured. Despite the irrelevance of that, you kept >>>> whining about it, so I offered that as a solution. Instead, you found >>>> *another* thing to whine about. >>> >>> >>> I wrote my annotations from the perspective of a hypothetical >>> professor, who treated the text in question as the homework of a student. >> >> A *real* professor, on the other hand, wouldn't bother questioning >> things that may be difficult or impossible to actually do with a problem >> like that. As is evident in so many mechanics problems assuming >> frictionless surfaces or air resistance. > > Sure, but still you missed the point, because it was not my aim to > immitate a real professor. > > I pretended to be a professor, what is more like in a role play. > > It is actually like this: if you would dress like superman, you > certainly won't try to fly. And if you dress up like a professor, then you’re certainly not going to find any real mistakes. > > ... > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 08:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jfr506Fc3soU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #581170 |
Am 28.03.2022 um 15:09 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> I wrote my annotations from the perspective of a hypothetical >>>> professor, who treated the text in question as the homework of a student. >>> >>> A *real* professor, on the other hand, wouldn't bother questioning >>> things that may be difficult or impossible to actually do with a problem >>> like that. As is evident in so many mechanics problems assuming >>> frictionless surfaces or air resistance. >> >> Sure, but still you missed the point, because it was not my aim to >> immitate a real professor. >> >> I pretended to be a professor, what is more like in a role play. >> >> It is actually like this: if you would dress like superman, you >> certainly won't try to fly. > > And if you dress up like a professor, then you’re certainly not going to > find any real mistakes. Of course I don't 'dress up like a professor', nor do I pretend to be one. It is a ficticious background, like in a role play. The role I play is that of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework of a student. But a specific dress is not required. The errors I find are all real, at least I meant my comments are about real errors. The method is actually a tool for self-education and works quite good, while you apparently do not understand, how that method works. The number of errors I found was just enormous, what came as a surprise for me. But that's a different story. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-14 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <K9NXJ.263633$zX2.7294@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #580244 |
Den 14.03.2022 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: > <snip> You have snipped everything of importance and only made a few irrelevant comments. So let's start again. 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 (CGS units) (1) where -ε = electron charge = -4.8032674e-10 Franklin 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 | 2022-03-17 08:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9g7p5Fbdk3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580285 |
Am 14.03.2022 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > > > Den 14.03.2022 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >> <snip> > > You have snipped everything of importance > and only made a few irrelevant comments. > > So let's start again. > 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. No! I have already written, that a magnet at the center of system K should be assumed as finite material magnet at that spot. Such a real finite magnet would produce a inhomogenous field round his exterior. > Let the velocity v⃗(t) of the electron be horizontal. No!! the orientation of the axes x,y and z cannot be related to 'vertical', because in SRT we have no Earth. > We will assume that the electron all the time is in this area. No!!! If the electron approaches along the x-axes with constant velocity, it cannot possibly start within the magnetic field, because otherwise the velocity would not be constant. > The force F⃗(t) on the electron will be: > F⃗(t) = -ε⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗)/c (CGS units) (1) Why do you want to use that outdated cgs-system and the obscure unit 'Franklin'? > where -ε = electron charge = -4.8032674e-10 Franklin That seems to be roughly correct, but I actually cannot recall the exact value for charge of the electron in Franklin. But it was in that range. But as far as I know Einstein didn't consider the real electron, because he didn't know about such particles (someone wrote that recently here in this forum). His term adressed something else: a test probe charged with one Franklin. > The acceleration of the electron will be: > a⃗(t) = F⃗(t)/(m⋅γ(t)) = -(ε/c)⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗)/(m⋅γ(t)) (2) With 'B' you apparently mean 'magnetic field'?? If so, you should consider, that fields are three-dimensional. Einstein used 'N' in this case. and N is actually the vector component of the field strength vector in the z-direction. such vector components are actually numbers, because the coordinate system contains the unit, not the vector component. But B is not a number. > where γ(t) = 1/√(1−v(t)²/c²) and m = electron mass it is conceptionally difficult to ascribe mass to a point. The term 'electron' should be understood as location of a certain state, not as a material object. Otherwise I would agree, but would think more in terms of electric fields, rather than in your scenario, which resembles newtonian mechanics. > > 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. > I never do that, because I'm happy with finding errors in the text under consideration. This text was Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. I do not attempt to find correct equations instead of the wrong ones, because I'm not the author of the text in question. > > 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| I wanted to express my oppinion, that the meant situation would require a 3d-vector equation, while the actual equation contains only magnitudes. That would be justified, if you want to figure out a single value, which was apparently the radius of curvature of the electron's path. But single points do not have curvature. > > 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. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-17 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <_xLYJ.239299$833.208454@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #580475 |
Den 17.03.2022 08:54, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am 14.03.2022 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> >> Den 14.03.2022 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> <snip> >> >> You have snipped everything of importance >> and only made a few irrelevant comments. >> >> So let's start again. >> 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. > > No! > > I have already written, that a magnet at the center of system K should > be assumed as finite material magnet at that spot. > > Such a real finite magnet would produce a inhomogenous field round his > exterior. >> Let the velocity v⃗(t) of the electron be horizontal. > No!! > > the orientation of the axes x,y and z cannot be related to 'vertical', > because in SRT we have no Earth. > >> We will assume that the electron all the time is in this area. > > No!!! > > If the electron approaches along the x-axes with constant velocity, it > cannot possibly start within the magnetic field, because otherwise the > velocity would not be constant. And so on.. Stop these stupidities. Respond to the post I posted a couple of hours ago. Don't insert stupid comments for every second statement. > >> The force F⃗(t) on the electron will be: >> F⃗(t) = ε⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗)/c (CGS units) Like this > > Why do you want to use that outdated cgs-system and the obscure unit > 'Franklin'? Because it was Einstein choice, which you know. The SI version is F⃗(t) = ε⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗) > >> The acceleration of the electron will be: >> a⃗(t) = F⃗(t)/(m⋅γ(t)) = -(ε/c)⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗)/(m⋅γ(t)) (2) B⃗ is a OBVIOUSLY a 3 dimensional vector. > > With 'B' you apparently mean 'magnetic field'?? > > If so, you should consider, that fields are three-dimensional. > > Einstein used 'N' in this case. and N is actually the vector component > of the field strength vector in the z-direction. > > such vector components are actually numbers, because the coordinate > system contains the unit, not the vector component. Good grief! > > But B is not a number. Why do you babble nonsense like this? Please respond to the post I posted a couple of hours ago. There I have defined the vectors better. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-17 15:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t100kv$1h1e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580475 |
On 3/17/2022 3:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.03.2022 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> >> Den 14.03.2022 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> <snip> >> >> You have snipped everything of importance >> and only made a few irrelevant comments. >> >> So let's start again. >> 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. > > No! Why not? > > I have already written, that a magnet at the center of system K should > be assumed as finite material magnet at that spot. > > Such a real finite magnet would produce a inhomogenous field round his > exterior. The description did not involve the exterior. It involved one point in the interior. Surely a magnetic field can be constant vertical at a single point, correct? >> Let the velocity v⃗(t) of the electron be horizontal. > No!! > > the orientation of the axes x,y and z cannot be related to 'vertical', > because in SRT we have no Earth. Technically true but frequently in 3d Cartesian coordinates, "z" is called vertical, x and y horizontal. Scientists know what is meant. Who called the electron velocity horizontal? Einstein? If so, congratulations, you *finally* found a meaningless minor nit in the SR paper! Then you'd have one down, 399+ more to go! > >> We will assume that the electron all the time is in this area. > > No!!! > > If the electron approaches along the x-axes with constant velocity, it > cannot possibly start within the magnetic field, because otherwise the > velocity would not be constant. It can be treated constant for one point! Also, its speed (not velocity) will be constant as it would go round and round in a circle in a constant magnetic field. Just take the tangent of the velocity at t=0 and call that the x axis. (or the field could be an electromagnet switched on at t=0) > >> The force F⃗(t) on the electron will be: >> F⃗(t) = -ε⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗)/c (CGS units) (1) > > Why do you want to use that outdated cgs-system and the obscure unit > 'Franklin'? > >> where -ε = electron charge = -4.8032674e-10 Franklin > > That seems to be roughly correct, but I actually cannot recall the exact > value for charge of the electron in Franklin. But it was in that range. > > But as far as I know Einstein didn't consider the real electron, because > he didn't know about such particles (someone wrote that recently here in > this forum). He explicitly stated that the 'electron' was a bit of matter with a small but nonzero charge. That was essentially the original definition. I don't know when the definition 'electron' = the elementary particle discovered in 1897, SR was 8 years later. Also Einstein wrote in German, did 'Elektron' as a charged bit of matter instead of the particle last longer there? > > His term adressed something else: a test probe charged with one Franklin. > >> The acceleration of the electron will be: >> a⃗(t) = F⃗(t)/(m⋅γ(t)) = -(ε/c)⋅(v⃗(t) X B⃗)/(m⋅γ(t)) (2) > > With 'B' you apparently mean 'magnetic field'?? > > If so, you should consider, that fields are three-dimensional. > > Einstein used 'N' in this case. and N is actually the vector component > of the field strength vector in the z-direction. And he stated the other two components (L, M) were zero. > > such vector components are actually numbers, because the coordinate > system contains the unit, not the vector component. > > But B is not a number. > >> where γ(t) = 1/√(1−v(t)²/c²) and m = electron mass > > it is conceptionally difficult to ascribe mass to a point. > > The term 'electron' should be understood as location of a certain state, > not as a material object. > > Otherwise I would agree, but would think more in terms of electric > fields, rather than in your scenario, which resembles newtonian mechanics. >> >> 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. >> > > I never do that, because I'm happy with finding errors in the text under > consideration. This text was Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies'. > > I do not attempt to find correct equations instead of the wrong ones, > because I'm not the author of the text in question. Then how would anyone call it an error, if there was no correct answer? > >> >> 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| > > I wanted to express my oppinion, that the meant situation would require > a 3d-vector equation, while the actual equation contains only magnitudes. Again, that was done for the special case of velocity, magnetic field and force being mutually at right angles and each aligned with a Cartesian axis. > > That would be justified, if you want to figure out a single value, which > was apparently the radius of curvature of the electron's path. > > > But single points do not have curvature. According to calculus, it's perfectly fine. Just like you can calculate a derivative at a point even though that is the slope of a tangent line, and a line requires two points. That's why calculus is loaded with 'dx' terms with the limit of 'dx' approaching 0. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-18 06:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9ikmaFpn9cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580492 |
Am 17.03.2022 um 20:02 schrieb Michael Moroney: >>> Let us have a large area with a constant vertical magnetic field B⃗. >> >> No! > > Why not? >> >> I have already written, that a magnet at the center of system K should >> be assumed as finite material magnet at that spot. >> >> Such a real finite magnet would produce a inhomogenous field round his >> exterior. > > The description did not involve the exterior. It involved one point in > the interior. Surely a magnetic field can be constant vertical at a > single point, correct? Sure, the description didn't contain the exterior of the magnetic field, because it required to use a homogenous, one directional field, which could be described by a single constant vector. Now I wrote, that this does not fit to the situation described, because that was about an approaching electron, that passed by a magnet at the zero spot of system K. iaw: the equation does not fit to the experiment, because the requirements for the equation are not possible to fulfill in the experiment. But that is a second grader erorr, not even acceptable for freshmen in physics. ... >> >> the orientation of the axes x,y and z cannot be related to 'vertical', >> because in SRT we have no Earth. > > Technically true but frequently in 3d Cartesian coordinates, "z" is > called vertical, x and y horizontal. Scientists know what is meant. Sure, physicists know what 'vertical' means, but you apparently not. > Who called the electron velocity horizontal? Einstein? If so, > congratulations, you *finally* found a meaningless minor nit in the SR > paper! Then you'd have one down, 399+ more to go! Actually Einstein mentioned the x-axis of system K. Along that axis the electron should fly with velocity v. That would require at least some amount of unaccelerated flight in a streight line. And that would exclude an infinite homogenous field. >> >>> We will assume that the electron all the time is in this area. >> >> No!!! >> >> If the electron approaches along the x-axes with constant velocity, it >> cannot possibly start within the magnetic field, because otherwise the >> velocity would not be constant. > > It can be treated constant for one point! That is not quite, what 'constant' means. > Also, its speed (not velocity) will be constant as it would go round and > round in a circle in a constant magnetic field. Just take the tangent > of the velocity at t=0 and call that the x axis. > > (or the field could be an electromagnet switched on at t=0) magnetic fields behave, as if the field itself had inertia. Therefore you cannot switch on a magnetic field without any delay. ... >> >> But as far as I know Einstein didn't consider the real electron, >> because he didn't know about such particles (someone wrote that >> recently here in this forum). > > He explicitly stated that the 'electron' was a bit of matter with a > small but nonzero charge. That was essentially the original definition. > I don't know when the definition 'electron' = the elementary particle > discovered in 1897, SR was 8 years later. Also Einstein wrote in > German, did 'Elektron' as a charged bit of matter instead of the > particle last longer there? As I was talking about the paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' only (!), I do not attempt to find other interpretaions of Einstein for the word 'electron'. But I can provide the definition used in that paper: quote (from page 22) "...because a ponderable material point can be made into an electron (in our sense of the word) by the addition of an electric charge, no matter how small." endquote That can hardly be meant in the same sense as we understand the term 'electron' today. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-18 03:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t11bnf$6ar$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580537 |
On 3/18/2022 1:46 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.03.2022 um 20:02 schrieb Michael Moroney: > >>> Let us have a large area with a constant vertical magnetic field B⃗. >>> >>> No! >> >> Why not? >>> >>> I have already written, that a magnet at the center of system K should >>> be assumed as finite material magnet at that spot. >>> >>> Such a real finite magnet would produce a inhomogenous field round his >>> exterior. >> >> The description did not involve the exterior. It involved one point in >> the interior. Surely a magnetic field can be constant vertical at a >> single point, correct? > > Sure, the description didn't contain the exterior of the magnetic field, > because it required to use a homogenous, one directional field, which > could be described by a single constant vector. And could this magnetic field be a constant field aligned with the z axis at this one point only, or not? > > Now I wrote, that this does not fit to the situation described, because > that was about an approaching electron, that passed by a magnet at the > zero spot of system K. Where the field is constant and aligned with the z axis, correct? > > iaw: the equation does not fit to the experiment, because the > requirements for the equation are not possible to fulfill in the > experiment. It is not possible to have the magnetic field constant and aligned with the z axis at a single point? > > But that is a second grader erorr, not even acceptable for freshmen in > physics. So you are claiming not only isn't it possible to have a magnetic field constant and aligned with a z axis (despite the z axis being chooseable), it is a second grader mistake to think that it is? >>> the orientation of the axes x,y and z cannot be related to 'vertical', >>> because in SRT we have no Earth. >> >> Technically true but frequently in 3d Cartesian coordinates, "z" is >> called vertical, x and y horizontal. Scientists know what is meant. > > Sure, physicists know what 'vertical' means, but you apparently not. No, physicists know that someone could say "vertical" but really mean "aligned with the z axis". > >> Who called the electron velocity horizontal? Einstein? If so, >> congratulations, you *finally* found a meaningless minor nit in the SR >> paper! Then you'd have one down, 399+ more to go! > > Actually Einstein mentioned the x-axis of system K. Along that axis the > electron should fly with velocity v. Did he say this x axis was horizontal? If so, I offer my congratulations! 1 niggling error down, 399+ to go! > > That would require at least some amount of unaccelerated flight in a > streight line. Why do you say that? > > And that would exclude an infinite homogenous field. Why does the field have to be infinite? > >>> >>>> We will assume that the electron all the time is in this area. >>> >>> No!!! >>> >>> If the electron approaches along the x-axes with constant velocity, it >>> cannot possibly start within the magnetic field, because otherwise the >>> velocity would not be constant. >> >> It can be treated constant for one point! > > That is not quite, what 'constant' means. So we don't even need it to be constant! Now the only requirement is that it is aligned with the z axis! > > >> Also, its speed (not velocity) will be constant as it would go round and >> round in a circle in a constant magnetic field. Just take the tangent >> of the velocity at t=0 and call that the x axis. >> >> (or the field could be an electromagnet switched on at t=0) > > magnetic fields behave, as if the field itself had inertia. And...? > > Therefore you cannot switch on a magnetic field without any delay. Since we have eliminated the need for it to be constant over more than one point, we can discard any need to switch the magnetic field. > > ... > >>> >>> But as far as I know Einstein didn't consider the real electron, >>> because he didn't know about such particles (someone wrote that >>> recently here in this forum). >> >> He explicitly stated that the 'electron' was a bit of matter with a >> small but nonzero charge. That was essentially the original definition. >> I don't know when the definition 'electron' = the elementary particle >> discovered in 1897, SR was 8 years later. Also Einstein wrote in >> German, did 'Elektron' as a charged bit of matter instead of the >> particle last longer there? > > As I was talking about the paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving > bodies' only (!), I do not attempt to find other interpretaions of > Einstein for the word 'electron'. > > But I can provide the definition used in that paper: > > quote (from page 22) > "...because a ponderable material point can be made into an electron (in > our sense of the word) by the addition of an electric charge, no matter > how small." > > endquote > > That can hardly be meant in the same sense as we understand the term > 'electron' today. > Which was my point. So unless you find somewhere where Einstein states the x axis was horizontal (or z vertical), we still have 0 errors, and the magnetic field can be varying all over the place, switched on and off repeatedly, even reversed perhaps, _as long as at a single point where the electron is moving, there is a magnetic field perpendicular to the motion_. But again, the physicists (who were the audience of this paper) wouldn't care about any of this, they all knew exactly what he meant. P.S. You appear desperate to find an error here. Your OCD pwns you. It rules you. It controls your life. Its wish is your command.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-19 07:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9lcftFbeg0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580540 |
Am 18.03.2022 um 08:18 schrieb Michael Moroney: > On 3/18/2022 1:46 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 17.03.2022 um 20:02 schrieb Michael Moroney: >> >>> Let us have a large area with a constant vertical magnetic field B⃗. >>>> >>>> No! >>> >>> Why not? >>>> >>>> I have already written, that a magnet at the center of system K should >>>> be assumed as finite material magnet at that spot. >>>> >>>> Such a real finite magnet would produce a inhomogenous field round his >>>> exterior. >>> >>> The description did not involve the exterior. It involved one point in >>> the interior. Surely a magnetic field can be constant vertical at a >>> single point, correct? >> >> Sure, the description didn't contain the exterior of the magnetic >> field, because it required to use a homogenous, one directional field, >> which could be described by a single constant vector. > > And could this magnetic field be a constant field aligned with the z > axis at this one point only, or not? An infinite field size would allow a homogenous field in one direction. But such an infinite size would not fit to the setting. This set-up mentioned an electron flying along the x-axis. Now inside a magnetic field, the flight cannot stick to the x-axis, because the electrons path would become curved away from that axis. Therefore only a finite size of the field and the magnet would match the description. That finite size would create an inhomogenous field. >> Now I wrote, that this does not fit to the situation described, >> because that was about an approaching electron, that passed by a >> magnet at the zero spot of system K. > > Where the field is constant and aligned with the z axis, correct? No. A magnetic field is not constant outside the magnet, but still present. >> >> iaw: the equation does not fit to the experiment, because the >> requirements for the equation are not possible to fulfill in the >> experiment. > > It is not possible to have the magnetic field constant and aligned with > the z axis at a single point? No, because to use the word 'constant' would require at least two points, which have same field strength vectors. >> But that is a second grader erorr, not even acceptable for freshmen in >> physics. > > So you are claiming not only isn't it possible to have a magnetic field > constant and aligned with a z axis (despite the z axis being > chooseable), it is a second grader mistake to think that it is? The mathematical modell should match the experiment. To use a different modell in a description than what the experiment would allow is actually the error. Even second graders could see, that you should not add, when you actually take things away. >>>> the orientation of the axes x,y and z cannot be related to 'vertical', >>>> because in SRT we have no Earth. >>> >>> Technically true but frequently in 3d Cartesian coordinates, "z" is >>> called vertical, x and y horizontal. Scientists know what is meant. >> >> Sure, physicists know what 'vertical' means, but you apparently not. > > No, physicists know that someone could say "vertical" but really mean > "aligned with the z axis". ??? I'm sorry, but what actually do you want to say???? 'Vertical' is related to gravity and the surface of the Earth. And without an Earth (or other gravitating body) there is no need to call something vertical. >> >>> Who called the electron velocity horizontal? Einstein? If so, >>> congratulations, you *finally* found a meaningless minor nit in the SR >>> paper! Then you'd have one down, 399+ more to go! >> >> Actually Einstein mentioned the x-axis of system K. Along that axis >> the electron should fly with velocity v. > > Did he say this x axis was horizontal? If so, I offer my > congratulations! 1 niggling error down, 399+ to go! No, I assume, that coordinate system can be rotated. The orientation x-axis = horizontal is therefore a possible setting. But that is my personal setting, because I'm allowed to rotate my coordinate system in the desired direction, not a requirement. As I'm actually subject to gravity, I like to introduce my own preferred setting to models I use. But SRT has other settings, which exclude gravity. Therefore you cannot declare any orientation of the axis to be 'natural' and therefore obvious. >> >> That would require at least some amount of unaccelerated flight in a >> streight line. > > Why do you say that? Well, the description was, that the electron approaches along the x-axis. This is a different setting than - say- 'the electron is at one point tangent to the x-axis'. No 'to fly along' means at least three different points on the x-axis, which the electron passes through with velocity v. From that would follow the requirement, that the magnetic field should set in later. >> >> And that would exclude an infinite homogenous field. > > Why does the field have to be infinite? Well, infinite is actually too large. But it should be greater than the appraoch path of the electron, because otherwise the approaching electron would encounter an increasing magnetic field. But that would not fit to the setting. >> >>>> >>>>> We will assume that the electron all the time is in this area. >>>> >>>> No!!! >>>> >>>> If the electron approaches along the x-axes with constant velocity, it >>>> cannot possibly start within the magnetic field, because otherwise the >>>> velocity would not be constant. >>> >>> It can be treated constant for one point! >> >> That is not quite, what 'constant' means. > > So we don't even need it to be constant! Now the only requirement is > that it is aligned with the z axis! Only problem: magnetic field lines are not always parallel. >> >>> Also, its speed (not velocity) will be constant as it would go round and >>> round in a circle in a constant magnetic field. Just take the tangent >>> of the velocity at t=0 and call that the x axis. >>> >>> (or the field could be an electromagnet switched on at t=0) >> >> magnetic fields behave, as if the field itself had inertia. > > And...? >> >> Therefore you cannot switch on a magnetic field without any delay. > > Since we have eliminated the need for it to be constant over more than > one point, we can discard any need to switch the magnetic field. No, we have not 'eliminated the need for it to be constant' for the magnetic field called 'N' in Einstein's text, because N is only a single value and not a function of something. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 11:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t0pmss$6dm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #580244 |
On 2022-03-14 10:00:53 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > But the first occurance of the word 'electron' was meant as 'point like > electric unit pole'. Such units of the cgs-system were so called > 'Franklin'. In "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" the term "Elektron" is introduced in section 10 to denote a particle with a nonzero but otherwise unspecified electric charge. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 07:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j9dftkF2udbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580312 |
Am 15.03.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-03-14 10:00:53 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> But the first occurance of the word 'electron' was meant as 'point >> like electric unit pole'. Such units of the cgs-system were so called >> 'Franklin'. > > In "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" the term "Elektron" is introduced > in section 10 to denote a particle with a nonzero but otherwise unspecified > electric charge. > Almost In Einstein's world the elctron could have any possible charge, because he had the idea, that a 'material point' could be turned into an electron by adding charge 'however small'. But this does not fit to our current understanding of the electron at all, because you cannot add or remove charge from/to an electron. The electron also cannot have different charges. So we have actually two different 'electrons' here. One was called 'electric unit pole', where that unit was the Franklin. The other electron is the particle called 'electron', which has a certain mass, charge and so forth. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web