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 455 — 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 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 04:10 +0200
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 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-30 11:37 +0300
Lunar Laser Ranging (was: Ralph's Paradox) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:46 +0200
Re: Lunar Laser Ranging Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 20:23 -0700
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 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 08:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-29 15:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:00 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:05 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (forget about it) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 13:02 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-30 10:39 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 08:55 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-29 15:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:04 -0700
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 19 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 23 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 19:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <119e880$2ic17$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673830 |
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: > > Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am > well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects > with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the > amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually > sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the > inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance > when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of > the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you > add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the > total is independent of your own relative movement in the original > gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent. > 16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html quote: | Here's the problem. | | P1->v-------J-------<-P2 | | Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are | approaching each other at ±v as measured by Jerry. | | Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as: | 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2. | | A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong. | P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2. You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6v2cnc8wM-BXMyf3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673851 |
On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: >> >> Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am >> well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects >> with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the >> amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually >> sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the >> inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance >> when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of >> the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the >> total is independent of your own relative movement in the original >> gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent. >> > > 16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: > https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html > > quote: > | Here's the problem. > | > | P1->v-------J-------<-P2 > | > | Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are > | approaching each other at ±v as measured by Jerry. > | > | Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as: > | 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2. > | > | A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong. > | P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is > | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2. > > You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: > Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 > Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 > > Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? > Any two frames are in a common frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Little Bakadorov <elaloda@laooe.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 18:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <119ecc4$3r03g$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #673852 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: >> You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: Kinetic energy >> of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 Kinetic energy of system in >> P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 >> >> Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? >> >> > Any two frames are in a common frame. instantaneously yes, finally a good answer to a question. But except light, there is nothing instantaneous in this world
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0E-dnXknv-WpIif3nZ2dnZfqnPjPQfwN@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673853 |
On 09/28/2026 11:41 AM, Little Bakadorov wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: >>> You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: Kinetic energy >>> of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 Kinetic energy of system in >>> P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 >>> >>> Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? >>> >>> >> Any two frames are in a common frame. > > instantaneously yes, finally a good answer to a question. But except > light, there is nothing instantaneous in this world > Since when?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mathieu Esipov <uiao@ehemmi.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <119eijb$3rbf0$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #673854 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> Any two frames are in a common frame. >> >> instantaneously yes, finally a good answer to a question. But except >> light, there is nothing instantaneous in this world >> >> > > Since when? yet another imbecile not knowing what an event is; you must be gearmon, or from australia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8OudnSyqYZO2Syf3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673855 |
On 09/28/2026 01:27 PM, Mathieu Esipov wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>> Any two frames are in a common frame. >>> >>> instantaneously yes, finally a good answer to a question. But except >>> light, there is nothing instantaneous in this world >>> >>> >> >> Since when? > > yet another imbecile not knowing what an event is; you must be gearmon, or > from australia > An event always has a time-series data co-ordinate as well, helping explain why ordering statistics always exist. Then, the account of physics and "the event", gets automatically equipped that also. The "geodesy" is always evaluated instantaneously everywhere as demonstrable by the fact that the solar system doesn't fly apart. Also the time-reversibility has never been falsified, about CPT and that both charge and parity have been, then also, Einstein says "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local", though it took him a decade or two to confess, and by then much damage was done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EiAggXiB4ilTiMohxZMKxu9CIGw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #673852 |
Le 28/09/2026 à 20:15, Ross Finlayson a écrit : > On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: >>> >>> Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am >>> well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects >>> with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the >>> amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually >>> sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the >>> inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance >>> when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of >>> the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >>> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the >>> total is independent of your own relative movement in the original >>> gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent. >>> >> >> 16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: >> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html >> >> quote: >> | Here's the problem. >> | >> | P1->v-------J-------<-P2 >> | >> | Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are >> | approaching each other at ±v as measured by Jerry. >> | >> | Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as: >> | 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2. >> | >> | A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong. >> | P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is >> | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2. >> >> You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: >> Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 >> Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 >> >> Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? >> > > Any two frames are in a common frame. This is getting wonderfully efficient. In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is frame-dependent. In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent. And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation: "Any two frames are in a common frame." Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him another one. Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too. At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference frames altogether. Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 08:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n06dnVJ8HrZ9RSb3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673858 |
On 09/28/2026 03:47 PM, Python wrote: > Le 28/09/2026 à 20:15, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >> On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: >>>> >>>> Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am >>>> well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects >>>> with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the >>>> amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually >>>> sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the >>>> inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance >>>> when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of >>>> the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >>>> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the >>>> total is independent of your own relative movement in the original >>>> gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent. >>>> >>> >>> 16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: >>> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html >>> >>> quote: >>> | Here's the problem. >>> | >>> | P1->v-------J-------<-P2 >>> | >>> | Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are >>> | approaching each other at ±v as measured by Jerry. >>> | >>> | Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as: >>> | 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2. >>> | >>> | A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong. >>> | P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is >>> | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2. >>> >>> You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: >>> Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 >>> Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 >>> >>> Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? >>> >> >> Any two frames are in a common frame. > > This is getting wonderfully efficient. > > In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is > frame-dependent. > > In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent. > > And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation: > > "Any two frames are in a common frame." > > Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him > another one. > > Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too. > > At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference > frames altogether. > > Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so > much. Well, since Lagrange about "real" and "potential" or "real" and "fictitious", the energy or forces, there's that the one sums to zero while the other sums to not-a-number. So, Lagrange makes at least two accounts about the _potential_ and the _potentials_ and the _potentialistic_. Then, about Noether theorem or conservation law, there's a more thorough account of _continuity law_, and for something like Shech's theorem (which as far as I know was an early bot output). About energy and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, and inertia and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, conservation of energy eventually demands an entelechy of a space. Conservation of energy is easy in closed systems, yet, physics is an open system, and furthermore, any closed system sits in an open system. Back to Lagrange, the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction" started before that, yet in the formalism and for the account, then has that Lagrange-closed and Lagrange-open are two different theories of Lagrange. So, more than a sum-of-histories, it's a sum-of-potentials, more than a least-action, it's a least-gradient, more than conservation law, it's continuity law. Why don't you dig a hole to China and notice now the non-linear oscillator has that the hole in the center of the Earth is an immovable object. Then, about attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution, in closed and open systems, the "severe abstraction of the mechanical reduction" is a bit too severe and a bit too reduced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZKGP61cbVyg3DpyNGBQeI9mVigk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #673871 |
Ross, That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy, open systems and a hole to China. Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left it: Jerry's frame: KE = M v^2 P1's frame: KE = 2 M v^2 Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of kinetic energy. That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation. So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument? Which of these is wrong: M v^2 or 2 M v^2? If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent. No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact. Ralph had it right in 2009. The mystery is not physics. The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MEGdnbPyzpsMfSb3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673873 |
On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote: > Ross, > > That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy, > open systems and a hole to China. > > Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left it: > > Jerry's frame: > > KE = M v^2 > > P1's frame: > > KE = 2 M v^2 > > Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of > kinetic energy. > > That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation. > > So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the > considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument? > > Which of these is wrong: > > M v^2 > > or > > 2 M v^2? > > If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent. > > No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", > open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact. > > Ralph had it right in 2009. > > The mystery is not physics. > > The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026. Take the distance to zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 09:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7sGdncaXCbFefCb3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673876 |
On 09/29/2026 09:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote: >> Ross, >> >> That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy, >> open systems and a hole to China. >> >> Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left it: >> >> Jerry's frame: >> >> KE = M v^2 >> >> P1's frame: >> >> KE = 2 M v^2 >> >> Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of >> kinetic energy. >> >> That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation. >> >> So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the >> considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument? >> >> Which of these is wrong: >> >> M v^2 >> >> or >> >> 2 M v^2? >> >> If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent. >> >> No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", >> open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact. >> >> Ralph had it right in 2009. >> >> The mystery is not physics. >> >> The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026. > > Take the distance to zero. > > See, now you gave yourself a twins paradox to go along with your perspective problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uB2dnQ-6bO6nfib3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673878 |
On 09/29/2026 09:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/29/2026 09:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote: >>> Ross, >>> >>> That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy, >>> open systems and a hole to China. >>> >>> Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left >>> it: >>> >>> Jerry's frame: >>> >>> KE = M v^2 >>> >>> P1's frame: >>> >>> KE = 2 M v^2 >>> >>> Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of >>> kinetic energy. >>> >>> That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation. >>> >>> So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the >>> considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument? >>> >>> Which of these is wrong: >>> >>> M v^2 >>> >>> or >>> >>> 2 M v^2? >>> >>> If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent. >>> >>> No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", >>> open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact. >>> >>> Ralph had it right in 2009. >>> >>> The mystery is not physics. >>> >>> The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026. >> >> Take the distance to zero. >> >> > > > See, now you gave yourself a twins paradox to go along with > your perspective problem. > > How about "Moment and Motion: a story of momentum".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <-oudnYSjTL58eyb3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673881 |
On 09/29/2026 09:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/29/2026 09:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 09/29/2026 09:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote: >>>> Ross, >>>> >>>> That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy, >>>> open systems and a hole to China. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left >>>> it: >>>> >>>> Jerry's frame: >>>> >>>> KE = M v^2 >>>> >>>> P1's frame: >>>> >>>> KE = 2 M v^2 >>>> >>>> Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of >>>> kinetic energy. >>>> >>>> That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation. >>>> >>>> So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the >>>> considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument? >>>> >>>> Which of these is wrong: >>>> >>>> M v^2 >>>> >>>> or >>>> >>>> 2 M v^2? >>>> >>>> If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent. >>>> >>>> No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", >>>> open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact. >>>> >>>> Ralph had it right in 2009. >>>> >>>> The mystery is not physics. >>>> >>>> The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026. >>> >>> Take the distance to zero. >>> >>> >> >> >> See, now you gave yourself a twins paradox to go along with >> your perspective problem. >> >> > > How about "Moment and Motion: a story of momentum". > > You've probably heard of Newton and Leibnitz and their priority dispute over the discovery of the calculus, though one arrived at differentiation the other integration and MacLaurin wrote the rigorous formal treatment in the "Infinitesimal Analysis" long before Cauchy and Weierstrass, yet also there's the account of Newton and Liebnitz about mechanics, and these are terms you should know: vis-motrix and vis-viva about the vis-insite, and I'll add vis-obliqua. Theories of "vortices" for example since DesCartes and Kelvin help illustrate that the plain linear accounts essentially have no concept of rotation, about the un-linear, about some "Zero-eth laws of motion", where the Galilean is due a fragment of the Mertonian school and Newton's laws are just re-hashing Galileo and Kepler, and about the definition of "force" vis-a-vis "mass" and "acceleration", vis-a-vis, velocity, and speed. So, spinning the bucket as it were, every time you jump up and down, the Earth bounces back. So, "the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction", is the result of a quite more thorough account than "perfect inelastic collision" since "immovable and unstoppable". When the twins, for example a light, goes from "Jerry", or "Charlie" for example, to equidistant points p and returns, now you've begotten two twin paradoxes, under the reductio, ad absurdam. Maybe you should try for "ab absurdam" instead of "ad absurdam". The vis-obliqua is non-zero. "Worlds turn."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 13:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ralph's Paradox (forget about it) |
| Message-ID | <W9ydnTI_n6HRhCH3nZ2dnZfqnPHjPDr5@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673884 |
On 09/29/2026 09:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/29/2026 09:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 09/29/2026 09:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 09/29/2026 09:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote: >>>>> Ross, >>>>> >>>>> That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via >>>>> entelechy, >>>>> open systems and a hole to China. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left >>>>> it: >>>>> >>>>> Jerry's frame: >>>>> >>>>> KE = M v^2 >>>>> >>>>> P1's frame: >>>>> >>>>> KE = 2 M v^2 >>>>> >>>>> Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of >>>>> kinetic energy. >>>>> >>>>> That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation. >>>>> >>>>> So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the >>>>> considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument? >>>>> >>>>> Which of these is wrong: >>>>> >>>>> M v^2 >>>>> >>>>> or >>>>> >>>>> 2 M v^2? >>>>> >>>>> If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent. >>>>> >>>>> No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", >>>>> open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph had it right in 2009. >>>>> >>>>> The mystery is not physics. >>>>> >>>>> The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026. >>>> >>>> Take the distance to zero. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> See, now you gave yourself a twins paradox to go along with >>> your perspective problem. >>> >>> >> >> How about "Moment and Motion: a story of momentum". >> >> > > You've probably heard of Newton and Leibnitz and their > priority dispute over the discovery of the calculus, > though one arrived at differentiation the other integration > and MacLaurin wrote the rigorous formal treatment in the > "Infinitesimal Analysis" long before Cauchy and Weierstrass, > yet also there's the account of Newton and Liebnitz about > mechanics, and these are terms you should know: vis-motrix > and vis-viva about the vis-insite, and I'll add vis-obliqua. > > Theories of "vortices" for example since DesCartes and Kelvin > help illustrate that the plain linear accounts essentially > have no concept of rotation, about the un-linear, about some > "Zero-eth laws of motion", where the Galilean is due a fragment > of the Mertonian school and Newton's laws are just re-hashing > Galileo and Kepler, and about the definition of "force" vis-a-vis > "mass" and "acceleration", vis-a-vis, velocity, and speed. > > So, spinning the bucket as it were, every time you jump up and down, > the Earth bounces back. > > So, "the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction", is the > result of a quite more thorough account than "perfect inelastic > collision" since "immovable and unstoppable". > > When the twins, for example a light, goes from "Jerry", or > "Charlie" for example, to equidistant points p and returns, > now you've begotten two twin paradoxes, under the reductio, > ad absurdam. > > > Maybe you should try for "ab absurdam" instead of "ad absurdam". > > > The vis-obliqua is non-zero. "Worlds turn." > > Yeah that "Moment and Motion" video essay series is quite profound about the theory of mechanics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 10:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <119ihq5$29jb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673873 |
Den 29.09.2026 17:35, skrev Python: > Ross, > > That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy, > open systems and a hole to China. > > Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left it: > > Jerry's frame: > > KE = M v^2 > > P1's frame: > > KE = 2 M v^2 > > Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of > kinetic energy. > > That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation. > > So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the > considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument? > > Which of these is wrong: > > M v^2 > > or > > 2 M v^2? > > If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent. > > No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", > open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact. > > Ralph had it right in 2009. But he didn't realise what he had done: https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html quote: | Here's the problem. | | P1->v-------J-------<-P2 | | Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are | approaching each other at +/-v as measured by Jerry. | | Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as: | 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2. | | A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong. | P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2. | | Who is right? | | (note how easy it is to produce a factor of 2 from nowhere, | just as Einstein did with his calculation of Mercury's | precession) Ralph thought that both couldn't be right, so he thought that he had found a (wrong) way "to produce a factor of 2 from nowhere". > > The mystery is not physics. > > The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026. He first claimed that KE was not frame dependent in 2013 (Before his disappearance)https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/KineticEnergyNOTFrameDependent.html But he has repeated it in 2026 so he haven't became wiser during his absence. :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <E7qdnWxgqsT5Qib3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673871 |
On 09/29/2026 08:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/28/2026 03:47 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 28/09/2026 à 20:15, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >>> On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: >>>>> >>>>> Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am >>>>> well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects >>>>> with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the >>>>> amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually >>>>> sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the >>>>> inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance >>>>> when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of >>>>> the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >>>>> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the >>>>> total is independent of your own relative movement in the original >>>>> gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: >>>> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html >>>> >>>> quote: >>>> | Here's the problem. >>>> | >>>> | P1->v-------J-------<-P2 >>>> | >>>> | Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are >>>> | approaching each other at ±v as measured by Jerry. >>>> | >>>> | Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as: >>>> | 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2. >>>> | >>>> | A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong. >>>> | P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is >>>> | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2. >>>> >>>> You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: >>>> Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 >>>> Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 >>>> >>>> Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? >>>> >>> >>> Any two frames are in a common frame. >> >> This is getting wonderfully efficient. >> >> In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is >> frame-dependent. >> >> In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent. >> >> And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation: >> >> "Any two frames are in a common frame." >> >> Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him >> another one. >> >> Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too. >> >> At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference >> frames altogether. >> >> Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so >> much. > > > Well, since Lagrange about "real" and "potential" or "real" and > "fictitious", the energy or forces, there's that the one sums > to zero while the other sums to not-a-number. > > So, Lagrange makes at least two accounts about the _potential_ > and the _potentials_ and the _potentialistic_. > > Then, about Noether theorem or conservation law, there's a more > thorough account of _continuity law_, and for something like > Shech's theorem (which as far as I know was an early bot output). > > > About energy and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, > and inertia and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, > conservation of energy eventually demands an entelechy of a space. > > > Conservation of energy is easy in closed systems, yet, > physics is an open system, and furthermore, any closed > system sits in an open system. > > > Back to Lagrange, the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction" > started before that, yet in the formalism and for the account, then > has that Lagrange-closed and Lagrange-open are two different theories > of Lagrange. > > > So, more than a sum-of-histories, it's a sum-of-potentials, > more than a least-action, it's a least-gradient, > more than conservation law, it's continuity law. > > > Why don't you dig a hole to China and notice now the non-linear > oscillator has that the hole in the center of the Earth is > an immovable object. > > > Then, about attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution, > in closed and open systems, the "severe abstraction of the > mechanical reduction" is a bit too severe and a bit too reduced. > > Creation and destruction versus conservation has that the wider, fuller dialectic provides ready grounds for both. Accounts like Sedov's "macroscopic theories of matter" always include "gyroscopic" and "continuity" relations beyond "kinetic" relations, and Sedov carefully explains that energy is always in a material form, that there's no such thing as "pure energy" at all. Anyways, back to Lagrange, and "the severe abstraction of the mechanical reduction", like what you can read about it from "The Dictionary of the History of Science", makes that Lagrange has two theories, and they're basically opposites. If you're not a "philosopher of physics", I suppose that you can still "close down and compute".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <veEqNNoO39Fw43aGyV_FHb6gWX0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #673874 |
Le 29/09/2026 à 17:55, Ross Finlayson a écrit : > On 09/29/2026 08:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 09/28/2026 03:47 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 28/09/2026 à 20:15, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >>>> On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am >>>>>> well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects >>>>>> with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the >>>>>> amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually >>>>>> sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the >>>>>> inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance >>>>>> when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of >>>>>> the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >>>>>> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the >>>>>> total is independent of your own relative movement in the original >>>>>> gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: >>>>> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html >>>>> >>>>> quote: >>>>> | Here's the problem. >>>>> | >>>>> | P1->v-------J-------<-P2 >>>>> | >>>>> | Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are >>>>> | approaching each other at ±v as measured by Jerry. >>>>> | >>>>> | Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as: >>>>> | 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2. >>>>> | >>>>> | A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong. >>>>> | P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is >>>>> | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2. >>>>> >>>>> You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: >>>>> Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 >>>>> Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 >>>>> >>>>> Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Any two frames are in a common frame. >>> >>> This is getting wonderfully efficient. >>> >>> In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is >>> frame-dependent. >>> >>> In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent. >>> >>> And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation: >>> >>> "Any two frames are in a common frame." >>> >>> Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him >>> another one. >>> >>> Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too. >>> >>> At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference >>> frames altogether. >>> >>> Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so >>> much. >> >> >> Well, since Lagrange about "real" and "potential" or "real" and >> "fictitious", the energy or forces, there's that the one sums >> to zero while the other sums to not-a-number. >> >> So, Lagrange makes at least two accounts about the _potential_ >> and the _potentials_ and the _potentialistic_. >> >> Then, about Noether theorem or conservation law, there's a more >> thorough account of _continuity law_, and for something like >> Shech's theorem (which as far as I know was an early bot output). >> >> >> About energy and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, >> and inertia and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, >> conservation of energy eventually demands an entelechy of a space. >> >> >> Conservation of energy is easy in closed systems, yet, >> physics is an open system, and furthermore, any closed >> system sits in an open system. >> >> >> Back to Lagrange, the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction" >> started before that, yet in the formalism and for the account, then >> has that Lagrange-closed and Lagrange-open are two different theories >> of Lagrange. >> >> >> So, more than a sum-of-histories, it's a sum-of-potentials, >> more than a least-action, it's a least-gradient, >> more than conservation law, it's continuity law. >> >> >> Why don't you dig a hole to China and notice now the non-linear >> oscillator has that the hole in the center of the Earth is >> an immovable object. >> >> >> Then, about attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution, >> in closed and open systems, the "severe abstraction of the >> mechanical reduction" is a bit too severe and a bit too reduced. >> >> > > Creation and destruction versus conservation has that the > wider, fuller dialectic provides ready grounds for both. > > > Accounts like Sedov's "macroscopic theories of matter" > always include "gyroscopic" and "continuity" relations > beyond "kinetic" relations, and Sedov carefully explains > that energy is always in a material form, that there's > no such thing as "pure energy" at all. > > > Anyways, back to Lagrange, and "the severe abstraction of > the mechanical reduction", like what you can read about it > from "The Dictionary of the History of Science", makes that > Lagrange has two theories, and they're basically opposites. > > If you're not a "philosopher of physics", I suppose that > you can still "close down and compute". Ross, I see you are now replying to yourself. At least you have finally found two observers who share a common frame. Meanwhile, the original calculation remains: Jerry: KE = Mv^2 P1: KE = 2Mv^2 Is either calculation wrong? If not, kinetic energy is frame-dependent. We have now visited Lagrange, Noether, Sedov, dialectics and a hole to China without getting any closer to that question. So yes, perhaps this is an excellent occasion to "close down and compute." Just once.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7sGdnceXCbHufCb3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673875 |
On 09/29/2026 08:57 AM, Python wrote: > Le 29/09/2026 à 17:55, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >> On 09/29/2026 08:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 09/28/2026 03:47 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 28/09/2026 à 20:15, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >>>>> On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am >>>>>>> well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects >>>>>>> with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the >>>>>>> amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually >>>>>>> sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance >>>>>>> when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of >>>>>>> the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >>>>>>> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the >>>>>>> total is independent of your own relative movement in the original >>>>>>> gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: >>>>>> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html >>>>>> >>>>>> quote: >>>>>> | Here's the problem. >>>>>> | >>>>>> | P1->v-------J-------<-P2 >>>>>> | >>>>>> | Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are >>>>>> | approaching each other at ±v as measured by Jerry. >>>>>> | >>>>>> | Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as: >>>>>> | 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2. >>>>>> | >>>>>> | A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong. >>>>>> | P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is >>>>>> | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2. >>>>>> >>>>>> You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: >>>>>> Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 >>>>>> Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2 >>>>>> >>>>>> Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any two frames are in a common frame. >>>> >>>> This is getting wonderfully efficient. >>>> >>>> In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is >>>> frame-dependent. >>>> >>>> In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent. >>>> >>>> And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation: >>>> >>>> "Any two frames are in a common frame." >>>> >>>> Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him >>>> another one. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too. >>>> >>>> At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference >>>> frames altogether. >>>> >>>> Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so >>>> much. >>> >>> >>> Well, since Lagrange about "real" and "potential" or "real" and >>> "fictitious", the energy or forces, there's that the one sums >>> to zero while the other sums to not-a-number. >>> >>> So, Lagrange makes at least two accounts about the _potential_ >>> and the _potentials_ and the _potentialistic_. >>> >>> Then, about Noether theorem or conservation law, there's a more >>> thorough account of _continuity law_, and for something like >>> Shech's theorem (which as far as I know was an early bot output). >>> >>> >>> About energy and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, >>> and inertia and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, >>> conservation of energy eventually demands an entelechy of a space. >>> >>> >>> Conservation of energy is easy in closed systems, yet, >>> physics is an open system, and furthermore, any closed >>> system sits in an open system. >>> >>> >>> Back to Lagrange, the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction" >>> started before that, yet in the formalism and for the account, then >>> has that Lagrange-closed and Lagrange-open are two different theories >>> of Lagrange. >>> >>> >>> So, more than a sum-of-histories, it's a sum-of-potentials, >>> more than a least-action, it's a least-gradient, >>> more than conservation law, it's continuity law. >>> >>> >>> Why don't you dig a hole to China and notice now the non-linear >>> oscillator has that the hole in the center of the Earth is >>> an immovable object. >>> >>> >>> Then, about attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution, >>> in closed and open systems, the "severe abstraction of the >>> mechanical reduction" is a bit too severe and a bit too reduced. >>> >>> >> >> Creation and destruction versus conservation has that the >> wider, fuller dialectic provides ready grounds for both. >> >> >> Accounts like Sedov's "macroscopic theories of matter" >> always include "gyroscopic" and "continuity" relations >> beyond "kinetic" relations, and Sedov carefully explains >> that energy is always in a material form, that there's >> no such thing as "pure energy" at all. >> >> >> Anyways, back to Lagrange, and "the severe abstraction of >> the mechanical reduction", like what you can read about it >> from "The Dictionary of the History of Science", makes that >> Lagrange has two theories, and they're basically opposites. >> >> If you're not a "philosopher of physics", I suppose that >> you can still "close down and compute". > > Ross, > > I see you are now replying to yourself. > > At least you have finally found two observers who share a common frame. > > Meanwhile, the original calculation remains: > > Jerry: KE = Mv^2 > > P1: KE = 2Mv^2 > > Is either calculation wrong? > > If not, kinetic energy is frame-dependent. > > We have now visited Lagrange, Noether, Sedov, dialectics and a hole to > China without getting any closer to that question. > > So yes, perhaps this is an excellent occasion to "close down and compute." > > Just once. Yes, that's called "extended comment". Making oneself a bot-conduit is not much an artifice. If you read this, we share a common frame. Also if you don't. Remember: "there is no _privileged_ frame".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Filiberto Bestolov <tr@btrloiit.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <119blof$3mfcl$2@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #673694 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.09.2026 03:07, skrev HenryWilson: >>>> My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one. >>> >>> Does that mean that you bluffed when you pretended to be a Doctor of >>> Science? :-D >> >> I cannot recall ever doing that. > > That's a plane lie! > > From February 2008 to February 2009 you called yourself > "Dr. Henri Wilson" and you signed your posts with "Henri Wilson. > ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)" > > From April 2009 to June 2012 you called yourself "Henry Wilson, DSc" > > In 2016 you called yourself HGWilson, DSc. > > Since you reappeared in 2026 you call yourself "HenryWilson" > > Don't pretend that you do not remember that you ten years ago claimed to > be a "DSc". > And what can DSc mean if not "Doctor of Science"? > > But thanks for confirming that you were bluffing. wrong again, you missed the point entirely; doctors dont need education in australia; same thing in gay gearmony, no need for education to get a diploma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 15:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n23sS2La2DvdZd272xZzzN14iQQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #673458 |
Le 20/09/2026 à 19:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : https://paulba.no/ J'ai vu que la page portant sur l'aberration de la position des étoiles a été modifiée. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web