Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672634

Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET

Show key headers only | View raw

Python wrote:
> 
> Le 01/09/2026 à 16:28, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> > On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I know of many thousands of such cases.but you wil have to buy my  book
> >>>>> to learn about them. It will be available very soon.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe you should go to Stockholm first to collect your prize, and use
> >>>> the money to distribute your works of genius for free.
> >>>
> >>> Nah! I don't want to be associated with a bunch of charlatans
> >>
> >> God luck with that.
> >>
> >>>>>> It also get many things completely wrongc...like the whole of
> >>>>>>> Astronomy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure, merely correct to about ten decimal places, for orbits in the
> >>>>>> solar system,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Correct according to constant light speed. So no objects are quite
> >>>>> where Astronomers think they are.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like the Huygens probe landed on Titan for example?
> >>>
> >>> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia instead of
> >>> missing the  Earth altogether and numerous other examples of constant
> >>> light speed failing..
> >>
> >> Shit happens.
> >> However, all succesful navigation through the solar system
> >> is based on using general relativistic coordinate systems,
> >> in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft,
> >> reckoning with constant speed of light, [1]
> >>
> >> You haven't shown that you can do better,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >> [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity
> >> (and hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level.
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The Pioneer Anomaly is explained variously, with regards
> > to the speed of light in the geocentric, the heliocentric,
> > and overall the "polaricentric".
> >
> > The dead-reckoning is a well-known difficult problem.
> >
> > The modern account of redshift-bias/distortion and that
> > since "Dark Energy" and "2MASS" for example, combined
> > with the overall isotropy of what was and is the visible
> > universe, make for that "light's speed is a constant, ...,
> > in deep space, ..., in a vacuum, ... at absolute zero",
> > that "deep space" is arbitrarily deep. I.e., there's plenty
> > of data that has falsified the often premier theories, then has
> > that a simple sort of experiment makes for distinguishing
> > space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
> > since "E = mc^2" is "only good to the first/second-order".
> >
> > So, redshift-distortion/bias, is a rather modern sort of
> > account that intends to make for why light's speed is a
> > constant, yet that it enters and exits rotational settings
> > as if tidally, then helping explain many effects of optics,
> > about which more local explanations fail, in a wider,
> > overall potentialistic setting, that the potential-fields
> > are the real-fields, and for accounts like "physics is a
> > gauge theory" and so on.
> >
> > It's a continuum mechanics.
> 
> The Cassini result is explained variously, with regards
> to the geocentric, heliocentric, and overall
> paragraphocentric.
> 
> Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being
> non-constant in precisely the constant way required by
> the potentialistic real-fields, except to second order,
> where E=mc^2 becomes rotationally linear.
> 
> This follows from continuum gauge mechanics and the
> Bäcklund-Ricci-Regge correspondence, in the usual sense
> that none of those words need to be connected by an
> equation.
> 
> It's a discontinuum mechanics.


This is not a physical theory; it is a pile of impressive-sounding
terminology assembled specifically to avoid the one thing a physical
theory must contain: a mathematical model that makes a falsifiable
prediction.

1. "The Cassini result is explained variously” explains absolutely
nothing.

    "The Cassini result is explained variously, with regards to the
geocentric, heliocentric, and overall paragraphocentric.”

"Geocentric” and "heliocentric” are coordinate descriptions. They are
not competing physical mechanisms capable of explaining a measurement.

And "paragraphocentric” is not a recognized physical framework. It
contributes exactly zero explanatory content.

The Cassini experiment measured the frequency shift of radio signals
passing near the Sun and placed a very tight constraint on the
post-Newtonian parameter . General relativity predicts a specific value:

A serious alternative theory therefore needs to calculate the observable
light-time/frequency shift and demonstrate something like:

or

and show how its parameters reproduce the observed result.

Your paragraph provides neither.

You haven't explained Cassini. You have named Cassini and then changed
the subject.
2. "Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being non-constant”
is a logical train wreck.

This sentence:

    "Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being non-constant
in precisely the constant way required…”

contains an immediate contradiction.

If a supposedly fundamental constant is actually variable, you must
specify:

    which constant,

    variable with respect to what,

    the functional dependence,

    the physical mechanism,

    the coordinate/frame dependence,

    the observable consequence,

    and the experimental bound on the variation.

For example, if you mean the gravitational constant,

then say so.

If you mean the fine-structure constant,

say so.

If you mean a PPN parameter, say so.

"Non-constant in precisely the constant way required” is verbal
camouflage for "I haven't specified the function."

Worse, redshift is itself an observable/relativistic effect. You cannot
simply declare that "redshift bias" converts a constant into a variable
without deriving the transformation and showing that it survives
coordinate changes and observational calibration.

That isn't physics. That's linguistic tax evasion.
3. "Except to second order, where becomes rotationally linear" is
mathematical gibberish.

This is probably the worst sentence in the entire specimen.

is the mass-energy equivalence relation for a body at rest. More
generally, special relativity gives

What exactly does "second order" mean here?

Second order in:

    velocity ?

    gravitational potential ?

    curvature?

    perturbation amplitude?

    angular velocity?

    a coordinate expansion?

    redshift ?

And what does "rotationally linear" mean mathematically?

Linear in angular momentum?

Linear in angular velocity?

Linear rotational correction?

If so, derive it.

Otherwise, "rotationally linear" is just a phrase wearing a lab coat.

Also, does not suddenly "become" rotational because someone invokes
second-order corrections. Rotational dynamics require additional
structure—angular momentum, moment of inertia, frame dragging,
stress-energy, or whatever your proposed theory actually uses.

You have supplied none of it.
4. "Continuum gauge mechanics" is not a substitute for equations.

    "This follows from continuum gauge mechanics…"

Fine.

Write the Lagrangian.

Define the fields.

Define the gauge group.

Define the connection.

Define the curvature.

Define the action.

Derive the Euler–Lagrange equations.

Show the conserved quantities.

Then derive the claimed Cassini observable.

Until that happens, "continuum gauge mechanics" is merely a noun pile.

If your theory is supposed to modify general relativity, you need
something concrete such as

Then demonstrate what your actually is.

You explicitly say:

    "none of those words need to be connected by an equation."

That sentence is effectively a confession.

They absolutely need to be connected by equations.

The equations are the theory.
5. "Bäcklund–Ricci–Regge correspondence" looks like three mathematical
ideas duct-taped together.

Bäcklund transformations, Ricci curvature/flow, and Regge calculus are
not interchangeable magical ingredients.

If you're asserting a correspondence between them, specify the map:
   
       B : {fields/configuration} - {fields/configuration}

Then establish what is preserved.

Does the correspondence preserve:

    the action?

    curvature?

    geodesics?

    constraints?

    observables?

    topology?

    field equations?

    solutions?

If it is merely an analogy, call it an analogy.

If it is a mathematical equivalence, prove the equivalence.

Otherwise you've committed the classic theoretical-physics version of
name-dropping: take several legitimate technical concepts, place hyphens
between them, and hope nobody asks what the arrows mean.
6. "It’s a discontinuum mechanics" is a slogan, not a theory.

"Discontinuum" could mean several radically different things:

    discrete spacetime,

    lattice mechanics,

    piecewise-flat geometry,

    singular fields,

    discontinuous matter fields,

    cellular/graph-based dynamics,

    non-smooth manifolds,

    discrete causal structure.

These are not remotely equivalent.

If you mean Regge-style discrete geometry, define the simplicial complex
and edge lengths:

Then specify the discrete action and field equations.

If you mean something else, define it.

A theory cannot be rescued by inventing a label after refusing to define
the machinery underneath it.
 Garbage

Your paragraph relies on an enormous pile of unstated premises:

    That "redshift bias" is a physically meaningful modification rather
than an observational/calibration issue.

    That a measured relativistic observable can be reinterpreted by
changing coordinate language without changing the underlying equations.

    That a fundamental constant can vary without specifying a dynamical
field responsible for that variation.

    That the variation somehow has exactly the magnitude required by the
desired result.

    That the required variation doesn't violate other precision
measurements.

    That second-order terms somehow generate a rotational relation.

    That is the appropriate equation for that correction.

    That several unrelated mathematical frameworks possess a common
correspondence.

    That this correspondence produces your claimed physics.

    That no equations are necessary to demonstrate any of the above.

    That experimental agreement can be asserted without calculating an
observable.

    That terminology can substitute for definitions.

The central hidden assumption is the most fatal:

You assume that because several concepts can be mentioned in the same
paragraph, they therefore participate in the same physical mechanism.

They don't.

A physicist reading this has a brutally simple response:

"Show me the equation."

A second physicist asks:

"What does it predict that GR doesn't?"

A third asks:

"What experiment falsifies it?"

A fourth asks:

"What are the free parameters?"

Then someone checks whether the theory reproduces the existing tests of:

    gravitational redshift,

    light deflection,

    Shapiro delay,

    perihelion precession,

    binary-pulsar timing,

    gravitational-wave observations,

    equivalence-principle tests,

    local Lorentz invariance,

    and precision bounds on varying constants.

At that point, vocabulary stops being useful.

If your theory introduces a varying constant, experimentalists will hunt
for that variation.

If it introduces an additional field, they will hunt for its coupling.

If it modifies the metric, they will constrain the modified metric.

If it reproduces GR exactly in every accessible experiment, someone will
ask why the new theory exists.

You don't get to choose which observations count.

The Cassini result is particularly unforgiving because it is a precision
measurement, not a vague qualitative observation.

A viable alternative framework has to proceed:

theory-field equations-solution-observable-numerical
prediction-measurement

Your proposed chain is currently:

     buzzwords-buzzwords-E=Mc2-Cassini

There is no computational bridge.

And "constant being non-constant" creates an additional quantitative
disaster. A varying fundamental constant isn't free. Once you introduce
variation, you must calculate its consequences everywhere else that
constant appears.

You cannot make X vary enough to fix Cassini and then quietly pretend X
remains unchanged in every other precision experiment.

That's how theories die: not from insufficient imagination, but from
collateral predictions.

Burn completely: "paragraphocentric."

There is no useful physics here. Delete it.
Burn completely: the redshift-bias claim.

Replace it with an explicit model:

or whatever your actual proposed relation is.

Then derive it.
Burn completely: the "second order ? rotationally linear" assertion.

Define the expansion parameter and derive the second-order term.



Then demonstrate where rotation enters.
Burn completely: the unexplained correspondence.

If Bäcklund/Ricci/Regge mathematics is genuinely central, define the
objects and construct the correspondence explicitly.

Otherwise remove the names.
Burn completely: "none of those words need to be connected by an
equation."

That is precisely backwards.

They need to be connected by equations, derivations, and observables.
Rebuild: the entire theory from first principles.

Start with:

    Ontology — what actually exists?

    Mathematical structure — manifold, lattice, graph, continuum,
discrete complex, etc.

    Fundamental variables.

    Symmetries/gauge group.

    Action or dynamical law.

    Field equations.

    Conservation laws.

    Classical/weak-field limit.

    Relativistic limit.

    Prediction for the Cassini observable.

    Numerical parameter values.

    Independent prediction that distinguishes the model from GR.

Until step 10 exists, there is no Cassini explanation.

One fragment survives: the instinct to connect precision experimental
anomalies/measurements with a deeper mathematical framework.

That's it.

Cassini is a legitimate place to test gravitational theory. Discrete
geometry is legitimate. Gauge formulations are legitimate. Bäcklund
transformations are legitimate mathematical objects. Ricci geometry is
legitimate. Regge calculus is legitimate.

But legitimate ingredients do not automatically make a legitimate
theory.

A refrigerator, a Ferrari, and a particle accelerator are all legitimate
machines. Throwing their names into one sentence does not produce a
working vehicle.

Right now this isn't a revolutionary theory waiting for refinement; it's
technical vocabulary hiding the absence of a model—so stop polishing the
prose, throw away the adjectives, and produce the equations or admit
there is nothing there.



snake in the grass


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

Thread

The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 23:33 +0000
  Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 23:41 +0000
    Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 00:47 +0000
      Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 10:43 +0200
      Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:44 +0200
        Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 18:30 +0000
          Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-23 23:45 +0200
          Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 11:55 +0200
            Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-24 16:13 +0200
            Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-24 08:04 -0700
    Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:38 +0000
    Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 11:36 +0000
      Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 11:52 +0000
        Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:39 +0000
          Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 12:56 +0000
            Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:09 +0000
              Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:07 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:28 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:08 +0200
          Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 13:18 +0200
            Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-19 15:34 +0200
              Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:19 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-19 18:47 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 06:53 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 08:14 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 10:33 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 08:59 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 11:31 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 09:35 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 12:30 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:54 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 16:25 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 14:36 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 16:58 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:00 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:14 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:25 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:40 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:42 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:53 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 19:43 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 17:21 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-24 19:48 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:16 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 06:23 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0300
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 20:43 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 20:53 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-20 07:03 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 06:50 +0200
            Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:19 +0000
              Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:15 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 19:04 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 14:38 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 18:21 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-24 22:01 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 01:59 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-25 11:16 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 11:26 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 11:07 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-26 14:19 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-26 15:40 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 19:45 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-26 23:00 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 06:02 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 07:42 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 07:43 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-28 09:59 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 23:04 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 02:29 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-25 11:16 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:58 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-29 13:10 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 13:13 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:32 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-30 11:06 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 08:33 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-25 13:36 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 20:56 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-27 13:37 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 20:02 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:51 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:06 +0300
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-28 12:01 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:34 +0300
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 11:35 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-29 13:58 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-29 14:30 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:41 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-30 11:50 +0300
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-30 11:06 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 07:59 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 13:36 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 11:07 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 14:30 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 07:28 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:51 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 17:16 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-01 10:52 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-01 11:23 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 11:59 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 20:44 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 22:11 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 18:04 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 18:05 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 20:32 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 20:52 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 21:59 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 21:21 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-03 23:10 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-04 10:25 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 21:12 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-05 12:14 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 19:04 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-06 11:55 +0300
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-06 10:48 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-06 11:38 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:08 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 14:52 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-06 14:55 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 08:56 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 07:26 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 14:29 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 07:55 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 08:03 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 15:12 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 08:42 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 10:43 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:13 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 16:15 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 10:24 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 19:05 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 09:35 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 23:44 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 17:40 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 02:25 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:07 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:09 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:24 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:27 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:39 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:42 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-08 17:44 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:54 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 09:21 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-08 17:42 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 18:34 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 18:15 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:13 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:01 -0700
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 17:41 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:13 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-07 12:44 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-06 20:20 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:28 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 07:20 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 15:50 +0200
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 20:30 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:07 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-30 11:58 +0300
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 08:07 +0000
                Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-31 13:34 +0300
  Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 09:20 -0700
  Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-18 21:30 +0200
    Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:29 +0000
      Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 11:37 +0200
  Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 13:23 +0200
  Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:53 +0200
    Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:13 +0000
      Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:25 +0200
        Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 21:29 +0200
        Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-20 15:50 -0700
          Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-21 11:34 +0200
            Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 11:52 +0200
          Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-22 12:09 -0700

csiph-web