Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380588 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-06-04 04:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 209 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-31 18:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-01 13:04 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 07:35 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-09 13:15 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-10 04:06 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:28 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 11:33 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:17 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:10 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:18 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:32 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 20:13 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:03 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:58 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 15:52 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 20:07 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:53 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:26 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:35 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 07:44 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 06:26 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:01 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 07:28 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:52 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 16:19 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:43 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:43 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:01 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:09 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:28 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:52 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:37 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:42 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-02 16:43 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-02 19:23 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-02 19:40 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-02 22:09 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 12:20 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 19:58 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 18:22 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 07:53 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 11:10 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-03 21:13 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 06:04 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-03 15:14 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-03 15:10 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-03 15:20 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 07:12 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 07:52 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 09:31 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 15:16 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 20:15 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-17 04:37 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 06:41 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-17 10:34 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 10:38 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-17 15:56 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 08:21 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 08:19 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:51 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:36 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-01 00:30 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:18 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 20:39 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 10:52 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 18:24 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 09:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 19:15 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 21:04 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 15:44 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-04 09:10 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 05:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-04 18:49 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 11:23 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 15:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:35 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 18:40 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:07 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-04 07:28 -0600
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:42 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:43 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:08 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 17:09 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-05 07:20 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 16:03 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-06 03:46 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 03:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 08:27 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-12 09:50 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 08:17 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 17:57 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 11:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:08 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 19:23 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 09:48 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 07:34 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-13 17:44 -0400
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 09:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 15:02 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 08:04 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 09:23 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 19:35 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 23:16 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 07:49 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-14 10:39 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 21:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-14 15:13 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-15 14:19 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-15 21:48 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-16 10:31 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-16 15:13 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 09:10 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-16 22:19 -0400
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 18:45 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-17 04:58 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 20:25 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-17 09:16 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 18:47 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:49 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 08:12 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 13:57 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-15 14:26 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-15 14:54 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-16 04:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:48 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 14:40 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:50 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 18:18 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 04:44 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-19 21:23 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 20:22 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 14:04 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 12:04 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-20 08:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-21 11:50 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 12:09 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:39 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:21 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-25 23:27 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-27 05:25 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-27 22:08 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-28 08:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-28 15:07 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:37 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-05-01 14:45 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 14:39 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 21:14 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:23 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:44 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:52 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:10 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-04 12:47 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-05 07:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 06:20 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-05 21:20 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 15:02 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-05 09:15 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-06 04:14 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-05 07:00 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:32 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:25 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-08 07:01 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 09:11 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-07 03:50 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:27 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-08 04:31 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:26 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-08 20:54 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:17 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-09 00:18 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:41 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-17 17:38 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 11:57 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 19:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-03 15:21 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 15:05 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 21:47 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:26 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-04 23:00 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 05:57 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 04:07 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 11:26 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 19:53 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-04-04 14:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 12:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-01 19:25 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:36 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 15:46 +0200
This is How it Happened...Summary PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 06:58 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 14:07 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 08:00 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-03 08:33 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:47 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:54 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-17 18:35 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-03 07:51 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-04 04:06 -0700
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <14928334.TDGYYH1E3o@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #381287 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/8/2016 5:18 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> So in your position, if there is a reference frame in which an apple is >>> at rest, and that apple is sitting on a table that is anchored to the >>> ground, then this reference frame is inertial? >> >> In *special* relativity: yes. And I do not think that is only my >> position. > > A reference frame tied to the ground on a rotating earth will exhibit > pseudoforces like centrifugal and coriolis. I think if you will look in > most books on classical mechanics, such as the one by Symon, you'll see > that this is not an inertial reference frame either classically or by > special relativity. Fallacy. The *rotating* *earth* is you raising the bar. PointedEars -- Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door when he went camping? A: 'Gone fission'. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 11:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nf5o1m$199m$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381830 |
On 4/17/2016 10:38 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/8/2016 5:18 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> So in your position, if there is a reference frame in which an apple is >>>> at rest, and that apple is sitting on a table that is anchored to the >>>> ground, then this reference frame is inertial? >>> >>> In *special* relativity: yes. And I do not think that is only my >>> position. >> >> A reference frame tied to the ground on a rotating earth will exhibit >> pseudoforces like centrifugal and coriolis. I think if you will look in >> most books on classical mechanics, such as the one by Symon, you'll see >> that this is not an inertial reference frame either classically or by >> special relativity. > > Fallacy. The *rotating* *earth* is you raising the bar. ??? Were you under the impression I was earlier referring to ground that was not attached to a rotating earth? > > > PointedEars > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 19:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ned4qt$6p5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381169 |
On 09/04/16 05:17, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/8/2016 1:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> OK, then I have to tell you upfront and in public that you have posted >> nonsense. An inertial frame of reference (in special relativity; in >> general >> relativity, globally inertial frames of reference do not exist) is one in >> which Newton’s laws apply; > > Yes. > >> that is, one whose relative velocity is constant >> and thus one whose relative acceleration is zero. > > Relative to what? How amusing, listening to two scientific ignoramuses trying to correct each other. Acceleration is not relative to anything. It is absolute. > >> >> Therefore, it is irrelevant whether it is moving “relative to the ground” >> (which “ground”?). For if it is not moving “relative to the ground”, its >> relative velocity is constantly zero, so its relative acceleration is >> zero, >> *too*, and therefore it it is*by definition* an inertial frame of >> reference. Which contradicts your statement. > > So in your position, if there is a reference frame in which an apple is > at rest, and that apple is sitting on a table that is anchored to the > ground, then this reference frame is inertial? An inertial frame is one that is not accelerating. ...so what does that say about free fall?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 15:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndr5ce$b57$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380780 |
On 02.04.2016 23:53, HGW wrote: > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 12:20:56 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> >> You attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration. That fails because you are very >> ignorant in physics, and did not consider all possible reasons. In particular >> you did not consider the reason this is so in SR: there is a symmetry of the >> world that makes it so. > > Tom, please try to learn something about real physics from someone who does > understand it. I can but wonder: Is it really possible that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge fails to understand what gigantic fool he makes of himself with the statement above? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndrbgn$93f$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380810 |
"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >On 02.04.2016 23:53, HGW wrote: >> Tom, please try to learn something about real physics from someone who does >> understand it. >I can but wonder: >Is it really possible that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge fails to understand >what gigantic fool he makes of himself with the statement above? Maybe Henry George Wilson understands physics, but Henry George Wilson doesn't post here. It is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge (posting under Henry George Wilson's name) that obviously doesn't understands physics. I wonder if Henry George Wilson knows his reputation is being smeared in here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 03:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ndrknl$4kj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380810 |
On 03/04/16 23:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 02.04.2016 23:53, HGW wrote: >>> You attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration. That fails >>> because you are very ignorant in physics, and did not consider >>> all possible reasons. In particular you did not consider the >>> reason this is so in SR: there is a symmetry of the world that >>> makes it so. >> >> Tom, please try to learn something about real physics from someone >> who does understand it. > > I can but wonder: Is it really possible that Henry George Wilson > fails to understand what gigantic fool he makes of himself with the > statement above? Paul, you should see a psychiatrist about your obsession with science fiction. Take Roberts along with you, he suffers from it too. -- ...Understanding Einstein's Relativity is easy compared with understanding why it is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 21:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2694727.HU4xH9SJrp@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #380832 |
HGW wrote: > On 03/04/16 23:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 02.04.2016 23:53, HGW wrote: >>>> You attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration. That fails >>>> because you are very ignorant in physics, and did not consider >>>> all possible reasons. In particular you did not consider the >>>> reason this is so in SR: there is a symmetry of the world that >>>> makes it so. >>> Tom, please try to learn something about real physics from someone >>> who does understand it. >> I can but wonder: Is it really possible that Henry George Wilson >> fails to understand what gigantic fool he makes of himself with the >> statement above? > > Paul, you should see a psychiatrist about your obsession with science > fiction. Take Roberts along with you, he suffers from it too. Science-fiction is what *you* are posting, and really bad one at that. Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, evidentially a long-time physicist at Bell Labs, Fermilab, and other places, has been talking science fact to you. Paul B. Andersen has been talking science fact to you. I, among other people, have been talking science fact to you several times. But you just do not listen or, more precisely, you just listen to the voices in your trollish head. *You* are the deluded one here who thinks that he can lecture a physicist about physics; who even believes he understands Einstein’s theory better than Einstein. So much for seeing a psychiatrist. Get well soon and *please*, GO AWAY until then. TIA. PointedEars -- I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 10:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <c1d3gbpmiu1a4glgm64r62oisj8skkd72s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380841 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:47:31 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> Paul, you should see a psychiatrist about your obsession with science >> fiction. Take Roberts along with you, he suffers from it too. > >Science-fiction is what *you* are posting, and really bad one at that. > >Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, evidentially a long-time physicist at Bell Labs, >Fermilab, and other places, has been talking science fact to you. Paul B. >Andersen has been talking science fact to you. I, among other people, have >been talking science fact to you several times. But you just do not listen >or, more precisely, you just listen to the voices in your trollish head. Roberts is a leading spokesperson of the conspiracy. His name appears regularly in articles and physics forums where innocent kids are continually bombarded with his scifi crap. >*You* are the deluded one here who thinks that he can lecture a physicist >about physics; who even believes he understands Einstein’s theory better >than Einstein. > >So much for seeing a psychiatrist. Get well soon and *please*, GO AWAY >until then. TIA. > > >PointedEars, hollow head
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1904849.vNYBzH1beJ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #380851 |
wrote: > On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:47:31 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >>> Paul, you should see a psychiatrist about your obsession with science >>> fiction. Take Roberts along with you, he suffers from it too. >> Science-fiction is what *you* are posting, and really bad one at that. >> >> Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, evidentially a long-time physicist at Bell Labs, >> Fermilab, and other places, has been talking science fact to you. Paul >> B. Andersen has been talking science fact to you. I, among other people, >> have been talking science fact to you several times. But you just do not >> listen or, more precisely, you just listen to the voices in your trollish >> head. > > Roberts is a leading spokesperson of the conspiracy. His name appears > regularly in articles and physics forums where innocent kids are > continually bombarded with his scifi crap. > > > […] > > > PointedEars, hollow head I was wrong: You do not need a psychiatrist; you need an undertaker. Because you are *brain-dead* stupid. *PLONK* PointedEars -- Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet? A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front I find myself very attracted to you. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 05:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndqbbt$l4t$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380734 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >On 02/04/16 19:40, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/04/2016 7:23 PM, HGW wrote: >>> The absolute frame is essential to SR because it is the medium that >>> Einstein's P2 relies on when it says the speed of light is independent >>> of the source. Lorentz's theory..which Einstein plagiarized...takes an >>> absolute medium for granted... and so did Einstein. >> >> You're presupposing an underlying mechanism. P2 just says that when you >> measure the speed of light in free space, you always get c, and that's all. >That's right..but that only occurs because of light speed is c in the >supposed aether. Ralph, Einstein rejected the concept of an aether for his special relativity work. There is no "supposed aether" in SR. Einstein had no need for any aether, and he said so. Adding an aether to SR is something of your creation, Ralph, not anything Einstein created. > The LTs make it always equal c irrespective of observer >movement. The LTs do not unify light speed from differently moving >sources. It is presumed that the aether does that. It is presumed by YOU, not Einstein, who did his work with no reference to an aether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 04:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ndrm4a$6sn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380590 |
On 01/04/16 13:04, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/04/2016 11:06 AM, HGW wrote: >> However, whilst >> Lorentz provided a plausible physical mechanism for light speed >> unification, Einstein's theory lacks any mention of such a feature. >> Being entirely mathematical, it merely assumes the existence of an >> absolute frame without having any need to mention it. > > It does no such thing. It makes no reference to an absolute frame, > because the theory has no need of one. You know, I expected someone to say that. The plain fact is, none of Lorentz's theory would work without an absolute medium to unify light speeds. His 'contractions' only served to make all measurements of light speed equal c, irrespective of observer speed. The 'c' in his gamma, is the speed of light in the presumed aether medium. > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53d5f284-fd77-4e69-8526-313b2a7af72b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380836 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 12:07:10 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 01/04/16 13:04, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 1/04/2016 11:06 AM, HGW wrote: > > > > > > However, whilst > > > Lorentz provided a plausible physical mechanism for light speed > > > unification, Einstein's theory lacks any mention of such a feature. > > > Being entirely mathematical, it merely assumes the existence of an > > > absolute frame without having any need to mention it. > > > > It does no such thing. It makes no reference to an absolute frame, > > because the theory has no need of one. > > You know, I expected someone to say that. The plain fact is, none of > Lorentz's theory would work without an absolute medium to unify light > speeds. His 'contractions' only served to make all measurements of light > speed equal c, irrespective of observer speed. The 'c' in his gamma, is > the speed of light in the presumed aether medium. But Einstein previously showed that light is NOT a wave, it is a particle, so your whole house of cards falls apart. No need for an ether. Do you seriously believe Einstein forgot about his paper on the photoelectric effect?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 10:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <r8d3gb9trld0fu2p049dof58je61c9rra9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380837 |
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:26:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> You know, I expected someone to say that. The plain fact is, none of >> Lorentz's theory would work without an absolute medium to unify light >> speeds. His 'contractions' only served to make all measurements of light >> speed equal c, irrespective of observer speed. The 'c' in his gamma, is >> the speed of light in the presumed aether medium. > >But Einstein previously showed that light is NOT a wave, it is a particle, >so your whole house of cards falls apart. No need for an ether. Do you >seriously believe Einstein forgot about his paper on the photoelectric >effect? HAHAHHAHHA! The worm has turned...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 19:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc128c73-4db2-4a94-91d3-3b6d6eb5cb75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380852 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:29:09 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:26:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > You know, I expected someone to say that. The plain fact is, none of > > > Lorentz's theory would work without an absolute medium to unify light > > > speeds. His 'contractions' only served to make all measurements of light > > > speed equal c, irrespective of observer speed. The 'c' in his gamma, is > > > the speed of light in the presumed aether medium. > > > > But Einstein previously showed that light is NOT a wave, it is a particle, > > so your whole house of cards falls apart. No need for an ether. Do you > > seriously believe Einstein forgot about his paper on the photoelectric > > effect? > > HAHAHHAHHA! The worm has turned... Actually, you are once again clueless, ignoring facts in favor of your refuted BaThWater. As any physicist knows, particles have wave-like characteristics: wavelength = h/p This explains why electron diffraction works. Is there any question that an electron is a particle? Yet its energy increases as 0.5*m*v^2 for low velocities but approaches p*c at high energies. Denial of this would put you in the stark raving crazy category, so please don't degrade yourself any more than you already have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 14:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ndsp0f$1spi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380856 |
On 4/04/2016 12:53 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:29:09 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:26:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> You know, I expected someone to say that. The plain fact is, none of >>>> Lorentz's theory would work without an absolute medium to unify light >>>> speeds. His 'contractions' only served to make all measurements of light >>>> speed equal c, irrespective of observer speed. The 'c' in his gamma, is >>>> the speed of light in the presumed aether medium. >>> >>> But Einstein previously showed that light is NOT a wave, it is a particle, >>> so your whole house of cards falls apart. No need for an ether. Do you >>> seriously believe Einstein forgot about his paper on the photoelectric >>> effect? >> >> HAHAHHAHHA! The worm has turned... > > Actually, you are once again clueless, ignoring facts in favor of your refuted > BaThWater. As any physicist knows, particles have wave-like characteristics: > > wavelength = h/p > > This explains why electron diffraction works. Is there any question that > an electron is a particle? Yet its energy increases as 0.5*m*v^2 for low > velocities but approaches p*c at high energies. Denial of this would put > you in the stark raving crazy category, so please don't degrade yourself > any more than you already have. HAHAHHHAHHAHA! So because light is like any other particle that takes time to go from A to B, Einstein was able to use it to construct a whole new physical theory that somehow involved time? Why didn't he use sound or bullets? What was so special about light? I'll tell you the truth. Einstein like many others was so envious and flabbergasted by Lorentz's idea of absolute movement affecting atomic bonds that he tried to get in on the act with claims about light's magical powers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edcfc388-8c2b-4d55-89d8-fed7c7651e09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380858 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 10:02:26 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 4/04/2016 12:53 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Actually, you are once again clueless, ignoring facts in favor of your > > refuted BaThWater. As any physicist knows, particles have wave-like > > characteristics: > > > > wavelength = h/p > > > > This explains why electron diffraction works. Is there any question that > > an electron is a particle? Yet its energy increases as 0.5*m*v^2 for low > > velocities but approaches p*c at high energies. Denial of this would put > > you in the stark raving crazy category, so please don't degrade yourself > > any more than you already have. > > HAHAHHHAHHAHA! So because light is like any other particle that takes > time to go from A to B, Einstein was able to use it to construct a whole > new physical theory that somehow involved time? Why didn't he use sound > or bullets? What was so special about light? I thought a superior intellect like yourself would know the difference. Photons (usually) travel MUCH faster. When electrons, protons, etc., get close to the speed of light, they start behaving like photons do. > I'll tell you the truth. Einstein like many others was so envious and > flabbergasted by Lorentz's idea of absolute movement affecting atomic > bonds that he tried to get in on the act with claims about light's > magical powers. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. In fact you don't because it has done so but you are so oblivious and full of yourself that you refuse to notice. THAT'S the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 19:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndmatu$24r$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380588 |
On 01.04.2016 02:06, HGW wrote: > Historical Overview. > [... blah .. blah...] BTW, Ralph. Is there any particular reason why you have failed to answer this question? Do you still claim that NASA had the power to fake all the observations of the passing of 2012 DA14 made by all the observatories that observed it? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndmb44$67b$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380658 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Do you still claim that NASA had the power to fake all the > observations of the passing of 2012 DA14 made by all the observatories > that observed it? Absolute. Good question. More of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 08:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <8dqtfb19q7m34ubo42codag8st24acbd3r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380658 |
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 01.04.2016 02:06, HGW wrote: >> Historical Overview. >> [... blah .. blah...] > >BTW, Henry. >Is there any particular reason why you have failed >to answer this question? > > Do you still claim that NASA had the power to fake all > the observations of the passing of 2012 DA14 made by > all the observatories that observed it? Maybe you should ask Walt Disney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 15:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndoif1$7t9$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380696 |
On 01.04.2016 23:36, HGW wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> > wrote: > >> On 01.04.2016 02:06, HGW wrote: >>> Historical Overview. >>> [... blah .. blah...] >> >> BTW, Henry. >> Is there any particular reason why you have failed >> to answer this question? >> >> Do you still claim that NASA had the power to fake all >> the observations of the passing of 2012 DA14 made by >> all the observatories that observed it? > > Maybe you should ask Walt Disney. > I don't think he is responsible for your fantasies. But since you won't answer the question, I can only assume that you have realized the obvious: it would be impossible for NASA to fake all the observations of 2012 DA14 made by all the observatories that observed it. The observations of DA14 made by observatories over which NASA had no control showed that NASA's prediction was spot on. That means that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge must have realized that his statement below was a gigantic blunder: On 29.03.2016 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: << quite obviously NASA is no going to admit it made a gigantic blunder. If it did, people would be shit scared whenever an asteroid was anywhere near Earth. >> Since we now know that NASA's prediction was spot on, while according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge it should have been wrong by half a day and 27,000 km if the ballistic theory was correct, we can only conclude that according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the ballistic theory is wrong; DA14 falsifies the ballistic theory. Or is it possible to arrive at any other conclusion by using down under upside down logic? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web