Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672286 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 440 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 14:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 15:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 18:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 22:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 14:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-23 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 15:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:17 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 17:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:01 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 17:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 22:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 23:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 10:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 14:54 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 23:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 01:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-25 07:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 11:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-27 14:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 12:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:41 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:15 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-29 14:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:37 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:19 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 10:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-30 12:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-30 11:49 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 21:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 22:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 08:27 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 11:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 16:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-01 18:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-03 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-04 12:17 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 21:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 23:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 04:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 02:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-01 11:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-02 01:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 07:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 21:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 02:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 21:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-06 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 20:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 03:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 12:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 14:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 13:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 15:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 18:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 19:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 06:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 09:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 12:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 13:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 16:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 15:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 12:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 13:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 11:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-03 13:37 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 09:09 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-05 12:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, curvature, the un-linear) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 13:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 20:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 07:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 21:05 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 05:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-06 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 14:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 19:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-09 19:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-10 20:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 23:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-11 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 20:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-12 10:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-13 11:10 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-14 01:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 15:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 22:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-15 05:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 04:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-12 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 22:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:31 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-13 22:23 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-14 21:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-15 13:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-15 13:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-16 20:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-16 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 06:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 07:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 11:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 11:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:01 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 20:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-18 11:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-18 11:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-19 14:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 14:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 11:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 11:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 13:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-20 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 09:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:25 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 14:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 17:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 19:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 21:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 07:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 14:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 15:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:26 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-23 07:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 09:19 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 21:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 00:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 17:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-25 23:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 19:12 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 08:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-26 05:39 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-26 12:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:06 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-24 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 23:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 12:07 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-23 17:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:52 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 01:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 23:55 +0000
Deflection of light, gravitational redshift (was: Ralph's Paradox) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-27 07:33 +0200
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:01 +0000
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 05:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-29 13:11 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-29 10:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 01:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 20:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-23 19:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-24 22:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-25 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-26 10:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 10:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-28 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 11:15 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Little Bakadorov <elaloda@laooe.ru> - 2026-09-28 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 12:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mathieu Esipov <uiao@ehemmi.ru> - 2026-09-28 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 14:03 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-28 22:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Filiberto Bestolov <tr@btrloiit.ru> - 2026-09-27 18:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-22 15:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 19:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-18 05:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 07:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 14:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 09:06 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 20:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 12:02 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-18 08:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 15:33 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-19 17:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 07:34 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 13:44 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 22:26 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 17:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 09:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 19:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:29 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 20:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 15:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 00:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 06:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 07:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 16:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 17:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 21:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 22:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 15:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 16:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-22 21:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700
Page 8 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 22 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 13:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d219327716446c$330073$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672758 |
On 9/4/2026 12:51 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> Without an observer and his brain? >> No way. >> Well, instead a brain some AI could >> manage them. > > Really? Really. > > Consider I can't. You've said - "no brain" >> Anyway, your Shit has persuaded you it is >> an outcome of observations. It is not. >> It is a postulated schema of observations. >> One of those I'm talking about. > > No. Oh, yes, poor piece of shit, yes. Having no clue about "observation" process you should shut up. > Whether Galilean kinematics adequately describes Nature is > then an empirical question. It doesn't describe nature at all. Observers, observations, coordinate system, measurements - nothing of that is a part of nature. And - well, it says the observed from a car speed of a tree is 100. In the reality it is 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 11:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AqiRaYlUPhJt0qVcYsDMhswiHgg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672760 |
Maciej,
> Consider
> I can't. You've said - "no brain"
That may explain more about this discussion than you intended.
> Observers, observations, coordinate
> system, measurements - nothing of that
> is a part of nature.
Neither are equations, numbers, kilograms, Cartesian axes,
English sentences, or the word "nature".
They are concepts we use to DESCRIBE nature.
You have just discovered what a physical model is.
> It doesn't describe nature at all.
Then apparently no mathematical physics describes nature,
because Nature contains neither differential equations nor
coordinate labels.
Newton's laws are not growing on trees either.
This is not an objection to Galilean kinematics.
It is an objection to describing nature mathematically.
But the really wonderful part is your next sentence:
> And - well, it says the observed from
> a car speed of a tree is 100. In the
> reality it is 0.
There it is again.
0 relative to WHAT?
You have spent several posts explaining that frames and
"schemas" are selected by brains.
Then suddenly:
"in reality it is 0"
with no frame at all.
Apparently the road has quietly become Absolute Space.
Newton would be delighted.
Galileo rather less so.
And even your psychology doesn't rescue this.
Suppose my car is parked and another car approaches me
at 100 km/h.
I can quite naturally say:
my car = 0
other car = -100 km/h.
Now suppose instead that the other car is replaced by a tree
and MY car approaches the tree at 100 km/h.
For avoiding the collision, my brain can just as naturally use:
my car = 0
tree = -100 km/h.
Same initial separation.
Same relative velocity.
Same time to collision.
In one case you happily accept that the object approaches
the car.
In the other you announce that the object is
"in reality"
stationary.
The difference is simply that, without saying so, you have
selected the ROAD frame for the second description.
Which is perfectly legitimate.
What is not legitimate is selecting the road frame and then
declaring its velocity to be the frame-independent
"REAL" velocity.
And no, Galilean kinematics does NOT say:
"the observed speed of the tree is 100".
It says that if
v_tree = 0
in the road frame, and the car frame moves at
u = +100 km/h,
then in the car frame
v'_tree = v_tree - u
= -100 km/h.
You can describe the same situation in the road frame:
tree = 0
car = +100
or in the car frame:
tree = -100
car = 0.
Your brain is free to select whichever "schema" you find useful.
The difference is that Galileo writes the choice down.
So after all the discussion, your alleged "serious mistake"
in Galilean relativity has finally become wonderfully clear:
Galileo says:
velocity relative to a specified frame.
Maciej says:
velocity "in reality".
And whenever anyone asks
relative to what?
the answer is apparently:
the road.
Congratulations.
Your complicated theory of observation has reconstructed
Newton's Absolute Space as a motorway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2_CcnaZlaO_YRwT3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672725 |
On 09/03/2026 08:53 AM, Python wrote: > That's not a contradiction in Galilean relativity. > > That's you objecting to the existence of a second question. Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter. Any smooth change in velocity involves infinitely-many non-zero higher-orders of acceleration at at least two points: starting and stopping. Length and distance are two different units. So, where does space-contraction begin and end? Or, I suppose you can take one of the old-fashioned ways out and just say that motion or one of its higher orders is impossible. Then though you don't have a theory of motion. I suppose that's relative, ..., with that otherwise it would be, "absolute".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 10:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <G5uBbi7LMEQz2BFP7W_8P03ZEXo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672739 |
Ross,
> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter.
Yes, provided you decide to invert zero and call the resulting
singularity a unit conversion.
This is the reciprocal-velocity formulation of not going anywhere.
Descartes already had one.
> Any smooth change in velocity involves infinitely-many
> non-zero higher-orders of acceleration at at least two
> points: starting and stopping.
Naturally.
This follows from the Finlayson Smoothness Principle:
if a function has derivatives,
all of them must be non-zero.
Unfortunately functions have not been informed.
For example,
v(t) = 3t^2 - 2t^3
smoothly starts with v(0)=0 and ends with v(1)=1, while its
fourth and all higher derivatives are identically zero.
Apparently the jerk stopped jerking before the theory did.
> Length and distance are two different units.
Indeed.
Length is measured in meters.
Distance, as everyone knows, is measured in distanceometers.
This is why dimensional analysis had to be invented:
to conceal the embarrassing fact that
[length] = [distance] = L.
> So, where does space-contraction begin and end?
Usually somewhere between the space-contraction-linear and
space-contraction-rotational regimes, after applying the
redshift-bias correction but before the paragraph becomes
paragraphocentric.
> Or, I suppose you can take one of the old-fashioned
> ways out and just say that motion or one of its higher
> orders is impossible.
An attractive possibility.
Another old-fashioned way is to define position x(t), then
velocity = first derivative,
acceleration = second derivative,
jerk = third derivative,
and notice that the existence of motion does not require an
infinite tower of non-zero derivatives.
> Then though you don't have a theory of motion.
Quite.
Whereas if zero velocity is infinity reciprocal velocity,
distance has different units from length, and smooth motion
requires infinitely many non-zero derivatives, one has
something considerably more ambitious than a theory of motion.
One has Finlayson Discontinuum Mechanics.
> I suppose that's relative, ..., with that
> otherwise it would be, "absolute".
Precisely.
Relatively absolute, except where absolutely relative.
Descartes already had one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 08:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) |
| Message-ID | <DOednRP7O-Usdwf3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672752 |
On 09/04/2026 03:23 AM, Python wrote: > Ross, > >> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter. > > Yes, provided you decide to invert zero and call the resulting > singularity a unit conversion. > > This is the reciprocal-velocity formulation of not going anywhere. > > Descartes already had one. > >> Any smooth change in velocity involves infinitely-many >> non-zero higher-orders of acceleration at at least two >> points: starting and stopping. > > Naturally. > > This follows from the Finlayson Smoothness Principle: > > if a function has derivatives, > all of them must be non-zero. > > Unfortunately functions have not been informed. > > For example, > > v(t) = 3t^2 - 2t^3 > > smoothly starts with v(0)=0 and ends with v(1)=1, while its > fourth and all higher derivatives are identically zero. > > Apparently the jerk stopped jerking before the theory did. > >> Length and distance are two different units. > > Indeed. > > Length is measured in meters. > > Distance, as everyone knows, is measured in distanceometers. > > This is why dimensional analysis had to be invented: > to conceal the embarrassing fact that > > [length] = [distance] = L. > >> So, where does space-contraction begin and end? > > Usually somewhere between the space-contraction-linear and > space-contraction-rotational regimes, after applying the > redshift-bias correction but before the paragraph becomes > paragraphocentric. > >> Or, I suppose you can take one of the old-fashioned >> ways out and just say that motion or one of its higher >> orders is impossible. > > An attractive possibility. > > Another old-fashioned way is to define position x(t), then > > velocity = first derivative, > acceleration = second derivative, > jerk = third derivative, > > and notice that the existence of motion does not require an > infinite tower of non-zero derivatives. > >> Then though you don't have a theory of motion. > > Quite. > > Whereas if zero velocity is infinity reciprocal velocity, > distance has different units from length, and smooth motion > requires infinitely many non-zero derivatives, one has > something considerably more ambitious than a theory of motion. > > One has Finlayson Discontinuum Mechanics. > >> I suppose that's relative, ..., with that >> otherwise it would be, "absolute". > > Precisely. > > Relatively absolute, except where absolutely relative. > > Descartes already had one. No, not that their derivatives are necessarily non-zero, that at least some point of functions that must start or stop with achieving relative rest: the relative differences under inverses and the convolutive, there exist those non-zero. It's a continuum mechanics. (I already have one.) Then, the usual account of trapezoid rule, for example, also has the sigmoidal for the sinusoidal and at some point (these relative inflection points, say) why that's not simply piece-wise reflected the sinusoidal the sigmoidal, that similarly a straight line a constant unit slope happens to have that the exponential also at some point its tangent is the same. Then, many usual accounts of differentiation automatically get equipped with necessarily integration, then that the Duhamel principle, not the usual account in partial-differentiation where Duhamel is posed as a framing then exercised away instead the account where Duhamel always has a nominally non-zero term in any differential or integral system that's thusly also a differintegro or integrodiffer system, for Parseval and Plancherel instead of L'Hopital and Rodrigues, where of course Rodrigues is great and L'Hopital is partial and a reductionism, then have that accounts of motion and _changes_ in motion result those always being mutual interactions, and thusly where the convolutional is more than less primary, that usual accounts of the linear eventually fail, and momentum is always lost in the wash in the kinematic, that energy's conserved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 09:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) |
| Message-ID | <Y0mdndMl4rzlcAf3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672785 |
On 09/04/2026 08:57 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/04/2026 03:23 AM, Python wrote: >> Ross, >> >>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter. >> >> Yes, provided you decide to invert zero and call the resulting >> singularity a unit conversion. >> >> This is the reciprocal-velocity formulation of not going anywhere. >> >> Descartes already had one. >> >>> Any smooth change in velocity involves infinitely-many >>> non-zero higher-orders of acceleration at at least two >>> points: starting and stopping. >> >> Naturally. >> >> This follows from the Finlayson Smoothness Principle: >> >> if a function has derivatives, >> all of them must be non-zero. >> >> Unfortunately functions have not been informed. >> >> For example, >> >> v(t) = 3t^2 - 2t^3 >> >> smoothly starts with v(0)=0 and ends with v(1)=1, while its >> fourth and all higher derivatives are identically zero. >> >> Apparently the jerk stopped jerking before the theory did. >> >>> Length and distance are two different units. >> >> Indeed. >> >> Length is measured in meters. >> >> Distance, as everyone knows, is measured in distanceometers. >> >> This is why dimensional analysis had to be invented: >> to conceal the embarrassing fact that >> >> [length] = [distance] = L. >> >>> So, where does space-contraction begin and end? >> >> Usually somewhere between the space-contraction-linear and >> space-contraction-rotational regimes, after applying the >> redshift-bias correction but before the paragraph becomes >> paragraphocentric. >> >>> Or, I suppose you can take one of the old-fashioned >>> ways out and just say that motion or one of its higher >>> orders is impossible. >> >> An attractive possibility. >> >> Another old-fashioned way is to define position x(t), then >> >> velocity = first derivative, >> acceleration = second derivative, >> jerk = third derivative, >> >> and notice that the existence of motion does not require an >> infinite tower of non-zero derivatives. >> >>> Then though you don't have a theory of motion. >> >> Quite. >> >> Whereas if zero velocity is infinity reciprocal velocity, >> distance has different units from length, and smooth motion >> requires infinitely many non-zero derivatives, one has >> something considerably more ambitious than a theory of motion. >> >> One has Finlayson Discontinuum Mechanics. >> >>> I suppose that's relative, ..., with that >>> otherwise it would be, "absolute". >> >> Precisely. >> >> Relatively absolute, except where absolutely relative. >> >> Descartes already had one. > > No, not that their derivatives are necessarily non-zero, > that at least some point of functions that must start > or stop with achieving relative rest: the relative differences > under inverses and the convolutive, there exist those non-zero. > > It's a continuum mechanics. > > (I already have one.) > > > Then, the usual account of trapezoid rule, for example, > also has the sigmoidal for the sinusoidal and at some > point (these relative inflection points, say) why that's > not simply piece-wise reflected the sinusoidal the sigmoidal, > that similarly a straight line a constant unit slope happens to > have that the exponential also at some point its tangent is > the same. > > > Then, many usual accounts of differentiation automatically get > equipped with necessarily integration, then that the Duhamel > principle, not the usual account in partial-differentiation where > Duhamel is posed as a framing then exercised away instead the > account where Duhamel always has a nominally non-zero term in > any differential or integral system that's thusly also a differintegro > or integrodiffer system, for Parseval and Plancherel instead of > L'Hopital and Rodrigues, where of course Rodrigues is great and > L'Hopital is partial and a reductionism, then have that accounts > of motion and _changes_ in motion result those always being mutual > interactions, and thusly where the convolutional is more than less > primary, that usual accounts of the linear eventually fail, > and momentum is always lost in the wash in the kinematic, > that energy's conserved. > > > About that length and distance are different in a dimensional-analysis, and not a dimensional-reduction the usual dimensionless-analysis, has that length is "here and now" while distance is "when and then", that there are obvious differences between "a over b" and "a by b" and "b into a", yet algebra the usual account of reductionism-cancellation doesn't know the difference, about usual things that result addition-formulae and subtraction-formulae and algebraic-identities with the quite usual arithmetization of any comprehensible algebraization, then that the geometrization is a bit more strong the account. Then that shows up of course of all kinds of fumbling with algebra and fooling with the definitions and invoking "almost" or "very" everywhere when algebras lose their connexions to the structure of the arithmetizations and geometrizations, which already have their higher accounts of the infinite and the continuous that most have as fragments and approximations. The "almost" and "very" is also the "not-quite" and the "not-quite".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 18:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) |
| Message-ID | <18d280af3e8acbd9$2$1900558$4236dc63@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672787 |
On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 09:09:11 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >> >> > About that length and distance are different in a dimensional-analysis, > and not a dimensional-reduction the usual dimensionless-analysis, > has that length is "here and now" while distance is "when and then", > that there are obvious differences between "a over b" and "a by b" and > "b into a", yet algebra the usual account of reductionism-cancellation > doesn't know the difference, about usual things that result > addition-formulae and subtraction-formulae and algebraic-identities with > the quite usual arithmetization of any comprehensible algebraization, > then that the geometrization is a bit more strong the account. > > Then that shows up of course of all kinds of fumbling with algebra and > fooling with the definitions and invoking "almost" or "very" everywhere > when algebras lose their connexions to the structure of the > arithmetizations and geometrizations, which already have their higher > accounts of the infinite and the continuous that most have as fragments > and approximations. > > The "almost" and "very" is also the "not-quite" and the "not-quite". The inclusion of comparatives and superlatives in scientific discussion might be likened to the use of shock treatment to restore life into lazy or incompetent minds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 12:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) |
| Message-ID | <Mb-cnW_5KLkk7QH3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672848 |
On 09/05/2026 11:38 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 09:09:11 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > >>> >>> >>> >> About that length and distance are different in a dimensional-analysis, >> and not a dimensional-reduction the usual dimensionless-analysis, >> has that length is "here and now" while distance is "when and then", >> that there are obvious differences between "a over b" and "a by b" and >> "b into a", yet algebra the usual account of reductionism-cancellation >> doesn't know the difference, about usual things that result >> addition-formulae and subtraction-formulae and algebraic-identities with >> the quite usual arithmetization of any comprehensible algebraization, >> then that the geometrization is a bit more strong the account. >> >> Then that shows up of course of all kinds of fumbling with algebra and >> fooling with the definitions and invoking "almost" or "very" everywhere >> when algebras lose their connexions to the structure of the >> arithmetizations and geometrizations, which already have their higher >> accounts of the infinite and the continuous that most have as fragments >> and approximations. >> >> The "almost" and "very" is also the "not-quite" and the "not-quite". > > The inclusion of comparatives and superlatives in scientific discussion > might be likened to the use of shock treatment to restore life into lazy > or incompetent minds. > The usual account of natural units starts not making sense, when natural units are magnitudes multiplicable by scalars yet cee minus vee equals in-finity, in terms of mass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 08:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, curvature, the un-linear) |
| Message-ID | <T-ScnYaiZ4Vnegf3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672739 |
On 09/03/2026 01:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/03/2026 08:53 AM, Python wrote: > >> That's not a contradiction in Galilean relativity. >> >> That's you objecting to the existence of a second question. > > > > > Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter. > > Any smooth change in velocity involves infinitely-many > non-zero higher-orders of acceleration at at least two > points: starting and stopping. > > Length and distance are two different units. > > So, where does space-contraction begin and end? > > Or, I suppose you can take one of the old-fashioned > ways out and just say that motion or one of its higher > orders is impossible. > > > Then though you don't have a theory of motion. > > > I suppose that's relative, ..., with that > otherwise it would be, "absolute". > > Another great wonder in the ansatz of everything is "curvature", which has at least two definitions, conveniently the opposites of each other, whether a straight line has zero curvature or infinite curvature. Making accounts of turns as distinctly via interpolation or extrapolation, about the in-radius and ex-radius, and the "petal" and "fugal", usually is after the account of feet moving, the petal, yet that the wheel turning, is fugal, for the true centrifugal, vis-a-vis, the centripetal, kind of like light is pure diffraction while radio is compounded refraction. It's not dissimilar the account of power and potential, again originally a word together like curvature or entropy with two complementary definitions that are opposites each other, the dunamis the potential and dynamis the power, these sorts of reflective accounts that make for space-inversion and about 0, 1, and infinity. These days one can often find holistic accounts where "the physics" is a potentialistic theory where the potential fields are the real fields, for example for a gauge theory with a real gauge R that is the curvature, then that a spiral-space-filling curve is a natural continuum and also happens to be the real gauge, its curvature. Now often you'll find physicists who aver that physics simply can't compute with infinity, and then zero gets dumped off the boat also, yet also they are idealists and acknowledge that the real the natural has both right angle and straight lines and perfect circles and smooth curves. Then, a granular setting simply can't have both right angles and straight lines, because Pythagoreans know that the diagonal of a unit square its magnitude is ir-rational, which in a granular setting would be too fine, so, continuity re-introduces itself naturally then for that the accounts of quasi-invariant measure theory and accounts of dimensionality make for that length, mass (or energy), time, and distance, have that there are singularities everywhere to avoid there being singularities anywhere. So, having a mathematical foundations with at least the three continuous domains that exist for structural realists like iota-values the line-reals, the extension of the rationals the field-reals, and analytical settings since Dirichlet and Nyquist and Shannon the signal-reals, with continuity and infinity then with consecutively stronger inferentially laws of large numbers, is required for a sound understanding then of the objects of the physics so described as "mathematical physics".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vW2dnT_svJdgrgX3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672668 |
On 09/02/2026 04:00 AM, Python wrote: >> Observation, poor piece of shit, is a >> complicated process. Really. >> >> Your pretty little formulas are not >> complicated. >> >> Complicated processes are not going to fit >> pretty little simple formulas > > Ah. A fascinating new principle of science: > > complicated process > => > simple equation cannot describe it. > > Someone should tell Newton. > > Planetary motion is complicated, therefore > > F = ma > > cannot possibly describe it. > > Pendulums are complicated, therefore > > T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g) > > is obviously brainwashing. > > Electromagnetic phenomena are extremely complicated, so Maxwell's > equations are presumably suspiciously pretty. > > And gases contain ~10^23 molecules, which conclusively refutes > > PV = nRT. > > Apparently the entire trick of physics - discovering that some > measurable aspects of complicated phenomena obey surprisingly > simple mathematical relations - has been a terrible > misunderstanding. > > Fortunately Maciej has discovered the correct scientific method: > > If reality is complicated, > the equation must look complicated too. > > Perhaps scientists should submit their equations to you for a minimum > word count. > > > But none of this rescues your original objection. > > The claim you called "bullshit" was simply the Galilean > transformation > > x' = x - ut > > and therefore > > v' = v - u. > > So enough philosophy about the profound complexity of driving a > car. > > What is YOUR formula? > > If an object has velocity v in S and S' moves at velocity u > relative to S, what is its velocity in S'? > > If > > v' = v-u, > > then your "bullshit" was Galileo. > > If not, show us the replacement. > > After Pythagoras and Einstein, it would be nice to know whether > Galileo has also joined the centuries-old conspiracy of people > whose equations aren't complicated enough for Maciej. Well, there's the "latitude of forms" from the Mertonian school, then DesCartes has accounts of both potentialistic theories and the rest and rotating frames, while then Galileo says nothing at all about spinning bodies, then Newton and Liebniz entertain in a debate the vis-viva besides the vis-motrix the vis-insita, so, DesCartes and the Oxfordian Calculators are rather good company, who were around a century before Galileo or Newton's popularizations. It's not dissimilar with FitzGerald and the like for Einstein. Since Galileo thus Einstein don't say anything about the mechanics of spinning bodies, though of course there's a usual account of angular velocity and momentum, yet those are noticeably after having singularities according to Lagrangian mechanics, thus just being local while something like DesCartes' actually does entertain the un-linear more properly and thoroughly, since they don't say: there's room in the formalism and the formula and also then the data, since it's well known that the reason a dynamometer exists is because the inputs that go into the description of the motor for motive force are different than what comes out. Really, don't you know that "throwing it on the dyno" is because the formulas just don't add up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 07:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <U7KdnecuYtv1pQX3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672677 |
On 09/02/2026 07:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/02/2026 04:00 AM, Python wrote: >>> Observation, poor piece of shit, is a >>> complicated process. Really. >>> >>> Your pretty little formulas are not >>> complicated. >>> >>> Complicated processes are not going to fit >>> pretty little simple formulas >> >> Ah. A fascinating new principle of science: >> >> complicated process >> => >> simple equation cannot describe it. >> >> Someone should tell Newton. >> >> Planetary motion is complicated, therefore >> >> F = ma >> >> cannot possibly describe it. >> >> Pendulums are complicated, therefore >> >> T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g) >> >> is obviously brainwashing. >> >> Electromagnetic phenomena are extremely complicated, so Maxwell's >> equations are presumably suspiciously pretty. >> >> And gases contain ~10^23 molecules, which conclusively refutes >> >> PV = nRT. >> >> Apparently the entire trick of physics - discovering that some >> measurable aspects of complicated phenomena obey surprisingly >> simple mathematical relations - has been a terrible >> misunderstanding. >> >> Fortunately Maciej has discovered the correct scientific method: >> >> If reality is complicated, >> the equation must look complicated too. >> >> Perhaps scientists should submit their equations to you for a minimum >> word count. >> >> >> But none of this rescues your original objection. >> >> The claim you called "bullshit" was simply the Galilean >> transformation >> >> x' = x - ut >> >> and therefore >> >> v' = v - u. >> >> So enough philosophy about the profound complexity of driving a >> car. >> >> What is YOUR formula? >> >> If an object has velocity v in S and S' moves at velocity u >> relative to S, what is its velocity in S'? >> >> If >> >> v' = v-u, >> >> then your "bullshit" was Galileo. >> >> If not, show us the replacement. >> >> After Pythagoras and Einstein, it would be nice to know whether >> Galileo has also joined the centuries-old conspiracy of people >> whose equations aren't complicated enough for Maciej. > > Well, there's the "latitude of forms" from the Mertonian school, > then DesCartes has accounts of both potentialistic theories and > the rest and rotating frames, while then Galileo says nothing at > all about spinning bodies, then Newton and Liebniz entertain in > a debate the vis-viva besides the vis-motrix the vis-insita, so, > DesCartes and the Oxfordian Calculators are rather good company, > who were around a century before Galileo or Newton's popularizations. > It's not dissimilar with FitzGerald and the like for Einstein. > > Since Galileo thus Einstein don't say anything about the mechanics > of spinning bodies, though of course there's a usual account of > angular velocity and momentum, yet those are noticeably after > having singularities according to Lagrangian mechanics, thus just > being local while something like DesCartes' actually does entertain > the un-linear more properly and thoroughly, since they don't say: > there's room in the formalism and the formula and also then the > data, since it's well known that the reason a dynamometer exists > is because the inputs that go into the description of the motor > for motive force are different than what comes out. > > Really, don't you know that "throwing it on the dyno" is because > the formulas just don't add up? > > > I wonder if there are extra points on the crackpot index for mis-spelling or mis-pronouncing Liebniz or Liebnitz or Leibniz or Leibnitz. Galileo basically ate from the Mertonian school's plate, except that part his picky self couldn't digest, then DesCartes was really a pretty great theoretical physicist, that between them were in front of Galileo's then Newton's by a century or so each, whose "severe abstractions to the mechanical reduction" as it's called, then has Lagrange enforcing a sort of pons asinorum, while Leibniz makes for the active force the vis-viva, that then Kepler kicked in the "System of the World" or universal gravitation, while f = ma is a pretty great classical approximation, since it's a definition in linear terms, then after Hooke's law and Clausius and Arrhenius then in the time of Kelvin is what results Gibbs' statistical ensemble, again that people forget that each those involve further reductions that separate the physics from the formula, the "severe abstraction the mechanical reduction".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jMmcnYijN_qWpwX3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672678 |
On 09/02/2026 07:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/02/2026 07:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 09/02/2026 04:00 AM, Python wrote: >>>> Observation, poor piece of shit, is a >>>> complicated process. Really. >>>> >>>> Your pretty little formulas are not >>>> complicated. >>>> >>>> Complicated processes are not going to fit >>>> pretty little simple formulas >>> >>> Ah. A fascinating new principle of science: >>> >>> complicated process >>> => >>> simple equation cannot describe it. >>> >>> Someone should tell Newton. >>> >>> Planetary motion is complicated, therefore >>> >>> F = ma >>> >>> cannot possibly describe it. >>> >>> Pendulums are complicated, therefore >>> >>> T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g) >>> >>> is obviously brainwashing. >>> >>> Electromagnetic phenomena are extremely complicated, so Maxwell's >>> equations are presumably suspiciously pretty. >>> >>> And gases contain ~10^23 molecules, which conclusively refutes >>> >>> PV = nRT. >>> >>> Apparently the entire trick of physics - discovering that some >>> measurable aspects of complicated phenomena obey surprisingly >>> simple mathematical relations - has been a terrible >>> misunderstanding. >>> >>> Fortunately Maciej has discovered the correct scientific method: >>> >>> If reality is complicated, >>> the equation must look complicated too. >>> >>> Perhaps scientists should submit their equations to you for a minimum >>> word count. >>> >>> >>> But none of this rescues your original objection. >>> >>> The claim you called "bullshit" was simply the Galilean >>> transformation >>> >>> x' = x - ut >>> >>> and therefore >>> >>> v' = v - u. >>> >>> So enough philosophy about the profound complexity of driving a >>> car. >>> >>> What is YOUR formula? >>> >>> If an object has velocity v in S and S' moves at velocity u >>> relative to S, what is its velocity in S'? >>> >>> If >>> >>> v' = v-u, >>> >>> then your "bullshit" was Galileo. >>> >>> If not, show us the replacement. >>> >>> After Pythagoras and Einstein, it would be nice to know whether >>> Galileo has also joined the centuries-old conspiracy of people >>> whose equations aren't complicated enough for Maciej. >> >> Well, there's the "latitude of forms" from the Mertonian school, >> then DesCartes has accounts of both potentialistic theories and >> the rest and rotating frames, while then Galileo says nothing at >> all about spinning bodies, then Newton and Liebniz entertain in >> a debate the vis-viva besides the vis-motrix the vis-insita, so, >> DesCartes and the Oxfordian Calculators are rather good company, >> who were around a century before Galileo or Newton's popularizations. >> It's not dissimilar with FitzGerald and the like for Einstein. >> >> Since Galileo thus Einstein don't say anything about the mechanics >> of spinning bodies, though of course there's a usual account of >> angular velocity and momentum, yet those are noticeably after >> having singularities according to Lagrangian mechanics, thus just >> being local while something like DesCartes' actually does entertain >> the un-linear more properly and thoroughly, since they don't say: >> there's room in the formalism and the formula and also then the >> data, since it's well known that the reason a dynamometer exists >> is because the inputs that go into the description of the motor >> for motive force are different than what comes out. >> >> Really, don't you know that "throwing it on the dyno" is because >> the formulas just don't add up? >> >> >> > > I wonder if there are extra points on the crackpot index > for mis-spelling or mis-pronouncing Liebniz or Liebnitz or > Leibniz or Leibnitz. > > Galileo basically ate from the Mertonian school's plate, > except that part his picky self couldn't digest, then > DesCartes was really a pretty great theoretical physicist, > that between them were in front of Galileo's then Newton's > by a century or so each, whose "severe abstractions to the > mechanical reduction" as it's called, then has Lagrange > enforcing a sort of pons asinorum, while Leibniz makes > for the active force the vis-viva, that then Kepler kicked > in the "System of the World" or universal gravitation, > while f = ma is a pretty great classical approximation, > since it's a definition in linear terms, then after Hooke's > law and Clausius and Arrhenius then in the time of Kelvin > is what results Gibbs' statistical ensemble, again that > people forget that each those involve further reductions > that separate the physics from the formula, the "severe > abstraction the mechanical reduction". > > > I.e., "classical mechanics" is falsified in many places in many ways every day and has been for about forever. Then, Einstein, for example, has that at the end of "Out of My Later Years", his final book on the subject of physics, an account of another "mass/energy equivalency relation", than the usual most-famous "E = mc^2", which was originally given meaning by being an expression in a Taylor series the first term, the rest being in different units and not particularly tractable to usual linear algebra, anyways Einstein gives another expression for energy E in terms of the centrally-symmetric, at least giving that un-like Galileo that his inertial-system has that nothing's ever exactly linear, that "perfect inelastic collisions" and "equal/opposite" have that "perfect" or "just" incidences of reflection, are a bit contrived usually, then with regards to immovable objects and unstoppable forces, and Einstein's systems of configurations of fixed, rigid rods, of material points. DesCartes already has one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <85zm-CjKMYokZRQh2u-qc-I_uO8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672681 |
Well, there's the "longitude of formulas" from the later
Mertonian school, which is often confused with the latitude
of forms, except in rotating coordinates where longitude
becomes angular and the forms become potentialistic.
Descartes already has one.
This is why the dynamometer exists.
People usually think a dynamometer measures torque and power,
but historically its real purpose is to demonstrate that
the formulas just don't add up.
If they did add up, obviously there would be no need to measure
anything.
Newton's
F = ma
is therefore only the severe abstraction to the mechanical
reduction of the dynamometric remainder, after Hooke but before
Gibbs, except where vis-viva is vis-insita and thusly more
properly un-linear.
Leibniz already has one.
Then there's the familiar mistake concerning
E = mc^2.
People think this is an equation because of the "=" sign.
Actually it is the first term of a Taylor series whose remaining
terms are in different units, which is why linear algebra cannot
tractably reach them except through centrally-symmetric
configurations of fixed rigid material points.
Einstein eventually noticed this in "Out of My Later Years",
but Descartes already had one.
This also explains why classical mechanics is falsified every
day.
Every time a car turns a corner:
Galileo falsified.
Every time a flywheel rotates:
Newton falsified.
Every time something is put on a dynamometer:
formulas falsified.
Every time two billiard balls fail to be perfectly elastic:
Lagrange falsified.
Every time an equation nevertheless gives the right answer:
severe abstraction to the mechanical reduction.
It's a remarkably robust methodology because every possible
experimental result has a technical phrase available for it.
The historical development is approximately:
Mertonians
|
v
latitude of forms
|
v
Descartes
|
+----> already has one
|
v
Galileo
|
+----> forgot spinning
|
v
Newton
|
+----> severe abstraction
|
v
Leibniz
|
+----> vis-something
|
v
Lagrange
|
+----> singularities
|
v
dynamometer
|
+----> formulas don't add up
|
v
Einstein
|
+----> Taylor series in different units
|
v
Ross
|
v
explanation of all the above.
There are of course subtleties.
For example, the spelling
Leibniz
Liebniz
Leibnitz
Liebnitz
forms a four-state orthographic ensemble. Under rotation these
are equivalent up to a DesCartesian transformation, although
the invariant spelling is usually lost under severe abstraction.
The associated conserved quantity is the vis-typo.
The important physical point is that nothing is ever exactly
linear, except the chain of non sequiturs connecting one
historical name to the next.
Descartes already had one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 13:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11791b1$2o7fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672665 |
Den 02.09.2026 12:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/2/2026 11:43 AM, Python wrote: > > >> Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving >> at velocity u. >> >> The velocities are >> >> v-u >> >> and >> >> -v-u. > > > Bullshit too. Have you ever been > driving a car, poor piece of shit? > Do you observe the velocity of your > car to be 0? Is that what your > speedometer indicate? > > Your mad religion has been selling you > crap for some centuries already. It > was just less impudent before the > idiot became your overguru. > What is your opinion of Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity? Is it crap? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 13:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d17eefb7e63516$2514277$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672669 |
On 9/2/2026 1:30 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 02.09.2026 12:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/2/2026 11:43 AM, Python wrote: >> >> >>> Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving >>> at velocity u. >>> >>> The velocities are >>> >>> v-u >>> >>> and >>> >>> -v-u. >> >> >> Bullshit too. Have you ever been >> driving a car, poor piece of shit? >> Do you observe the velocity of your >> car to be 0? Is that what your >> speedometer indicate? >> >> Your mad religion has been selling you >> crap for some centuries already. It >> was just less impudent before the >> idiot became your overguru. >> > > What is your opinion of Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity? > > Is it crap? :-D No. A lot of primitive mysticism, like everywhere in physics, but usable as a model, and what I'm denying here is the only serious mistake I see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 20:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117cffg$3v4p0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672671 |
Den 02.09.2026 13:54, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/2/2026 1:30 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 02.09.2026 12:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 9/2/2026 11:43 AM, Python wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving >>>> at velocity u. >>>> >>>> The velocities are >>>> >>>> v-u >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> -v-u. >>> >>> >>> Bullshit too. Have you ever been >>> driving a car, poor piece of shit? >>> Do you observe the velocity of your >>> car to be 0? Is that what your >>> speedometer indicate? >>> >>> Your mad religion has been selling you >>> crap for some centuries already. It >>> was just less impudent before the >>> idiot became your overguru. >>> >> >> What is your opinion of Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity? >> >> Is it crap? :-D > > No. A lot of primitive mysticism, like everywhere > in physics, but usable as a model, and what I'm > denying here is the only serious mistake I see. > Exactly what of Newtonian Mechanics are you 'denying'? Galilean Relativity? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 07:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d2064425aa3de2$2518944$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672737 |
On 9/3/2026 8:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 02.09.2026 13:54, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/2/2026 1:30 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 02.09.2026 12:15, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 9/2/2026 11:43 AM, Python wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving >>>>> at velocity u. >>>>> >>>>> The velocities are >>>>> >>>>> v-u >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> -v-u. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bullshit too. Have you ever been >>>> driving a car, poor piece of shit? >>>> Do you observe the velocity of your >>>> car to be 0? Is that what your >>>> speedometer indicate? >>>> >>>> Your mad religion has been selling you >>>> crap for some centuries already. It >>>> was just less impudent before the >>>> idiot became your overguru. >>>> >>> >>> What is your opinion of Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity? >>> >>> Is it crap? :-D >> >> No. A lot of primitive mysticism, like everywhere >> in physics, but usable as a model, and what I'm >> denying here is the only serious mistake I see. >> > > Exactly what of Newtonian Mechanics are you 'denying'? > Galilean Relativity? > I'm not denying any part of Newtonian mechanics. But I am denying a part of "Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity" indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 21:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117f4jm$tdv6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672745 |
Den 04.09.2026 07:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/3/2026 8:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 02.09.2026 13:54, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 9/2/2026 1:30 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> What is your opinion of Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity? >>>> >>>> Is it crap? :-D >>> >>> No. A lot of primitive mysticism, like everywhere >>> in physics, but usable as a model, and what I'm >>> denying here is the only serious mistake I see. >>> >> >> Exactly what of Newtonian Mechanics are you 'denying'? >> Galilean Relativity? >> > > I'm not denying any part of Newtonian mechanics. > But I am denying a part of "Newtonian Mechanics > with Galilean Relativity" indeed. > Thought so! :-D You think the word 'relative' was invented by Einstein! If you are sitting in a train going with the speed v relative to the ground, then you are not stationary relative to the chair you are sitting on, right? What is your speed? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 21:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d2339689f8b3e8$2521703$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672795 |
On 9/4/2026 9:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 04.09.2026 07:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/3/2026 8:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 02.09.2026 13:54, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 9/2/2026 1:30 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What is your opinion of Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity? >>>>> >>>>> Is it crap? :-D >>>> >>>> No. A lot of primitive mysticism, like everywhere >>>> in physics, but usable as a model, and what I'm >>>> denying here is the only serious mistake I see. >>>> >>> >>> Exactly what of Newtonian Mechanics are you 'denying'? >>> Galilean Relativity? >>> >> >> I'm not denying any part of Newtonian mechanics. >> But I am denying a part of "Newtonian Mechanics >> with Galilean Relativity" indeed. >> > > Thought so! :-D > > You think the word 'relative' was invented by Einstein! No, I don't, you're just slandering, as expected from a piece of relativistic shit (even if slandering is not an invention of your mad religion).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 21:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117f7fd$uok5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672796 |
Den 04.09.2026 21:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/4/2026 9:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 04.09.2026 07:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 9/3/2026 8:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> Exactly what of Newtonian Mechanics are you 'denying'? >>>> Galilean Relativity? >>>> >>> >>> I'm not denying any part of Newtonian mechanics. >>> But I am denying a part of "Newtonian Mechanics >>> with Galilean Relativity" indeed. >>> >> >> Thought so! :-D >> >> You think the word 'relative' was invented by Einstein! > > No, I don't, you're just slandering, as > expected from a piece of relativistic shit > (even if slandering is not an invention > of your mad religion). > So you know that "relativity" was used long before Einstein. Knowing that, why are you then "denying a part of Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity"? Don't you know that Galilean Relativity is an integral part of Newtonian mechanics? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web