Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #397787 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-06 02:02 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-22 15:48 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 02:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 11:29 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 12:28 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-06 04:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 05:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:08 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:42 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-06 15:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:25 -0800
Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 21:25 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:46 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 23:10 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 08:35 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 00:19 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 10:33 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:07 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 07:20 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:33 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 02:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-07 03:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 16:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 17:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 17:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 19:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 19:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 19:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 20:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 23:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-08 03:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:25 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 06:23 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 06:27 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-08 06:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 22:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 22:59 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-08 10:17 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:31 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-09 02:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 09:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 19:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 01:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:10 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:37 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 10:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-08 08:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 10:43 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-08 20:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:43 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 07:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 08:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 11:03 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 09:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:46 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 17:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:14 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 03:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 03:09 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 22:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 12:25 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-10 03:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-10 15:26 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 16:13 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 08:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 16:05 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 10:55 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:54 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 10:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-10 06:20 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-08 18:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 23:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:36 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 04:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 04:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 13:57 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 16:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:30 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:47 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 16:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-10 17:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 07:40 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:24 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:51 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 07:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:40 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 08:11 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 17:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-10 06:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:40 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:28 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 16:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:48 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:27 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:45 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-10 17:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-10 19:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-10 20:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:50 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 13:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 23:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 05:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 05:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 11:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 13:53 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 12:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 14:26 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 13:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:21 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 13:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 12:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 13:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 06:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:31 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 08:16 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 13:08 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 06:14 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 09:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 12:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 14:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-11 23:45 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 05:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 08:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-14 05:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 06:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:52 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 12:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 16:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 14:41 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 09:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 11:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 12:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 17:06 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 21:59 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 22:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-19 09:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 06:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:08 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 05:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 20:39 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-23 08:54 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:03 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:15 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-27 07:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-28 02:23 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:27 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 18:15 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-13 04:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 20:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 05:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-14 13:27 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 08:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 13:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 23:12 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-17 17:57 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 13:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 12:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> - 2016-11-17 22:08 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:32 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:05 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 04:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:12 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-23 15:55 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:13 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-21 17:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 05:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:06 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 05:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:18 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-23 09:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:20 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 22:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 20:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 20:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 05:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 08:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:32 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:36 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 07:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-13 22:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 04:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:33 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 06:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:51 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 17:43 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 19:28 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 16:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 12:32 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 13:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 14:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 14:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 15:25 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 14:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 09:25 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 10:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-14 12:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 14:05 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-16 10:32 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 17:03 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 18:17 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 17:26 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 10:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 21:05 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck sdf <sdf@sdf.sdf> - 2016-11-17 20:31 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 21:57 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> - 2016-11-20 22:33 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:14 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 09:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:43 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 04:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 04:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:56 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 05:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:45 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:45 +0100
Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 05:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-07 12:20 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:33 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 06:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 17:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 09:42 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 09:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 09:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 12:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:11 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 22:17 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 20:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:01 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 15:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 16:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 16:59 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:54 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 20:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 12:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 12:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 14:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 14:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 06:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-13 07:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 15:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 11:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 04:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 20:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 20:16 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 12:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 09:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 17:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 11:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 12:17 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 14:22 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-20 13:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 21:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:48 -0800
Page 5 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 18 Next page →
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 08:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa9ce946-51e8-4818-971c-63acf32b4aae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398022 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: Peter, there is no force involved in the inverse square law. I can explain this simply. Let's suppose there is a flash bulb, which emits 100,000 photons in a fraction of a second. All of these photons will be spread out in a fairly uniform distribution in all directions. About 3.3 nanoseconds later, all of these 100,000 photons will have traveled about 1.0 meters away from the flashbulb. This means they will all be spread over a sphere of radius 1.0 meters and surface area of 12.6 m^2 and hence the density of photons is (100,000 photons)/(12.6 m^2) = 7960 photons per square meter. This tells you the intensity of light after 3.3 nanoseconds. Now let's wait until 10 nanoseconds. Now all the 100,000 photons are a distance of 3.0 meters away, and they are spread out over a spherical surface of area 113 m^2. Now please pay attention. Notice that none of the photons have been impeded, nor have any of them been split. It is still the same number of photons: 100,000 photons. But now the density of the photons is (100,000 photons)/(113 m^2) = 884 photons per square meter. That's a lot less then the 7960 photons per square meter just a little bit ago. In summary, the density decreases as the photons spread out, even though no photons are lost and no photons are split up. The intensity of light, which is proportional to the density of the photons, therefore decreases with distance, even though no photons are lost. While the Photons are transitioning the vacuum of free space, the photons energy (e=hf) will alter the impedance of the vacuum while the photons are in the Medium of the Vacuum of free space, raising the speed of light or raising the Kinetic Energy of the vacuum per meter^3, altering the impedance of the vacuum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 16:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <118be4b8-9ace-49c7-828c-e542d7b19be8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398022 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 12:21:46 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > In summary, the density decreases as the photons spread out, even though > no photons are lost and no photons are split up. The intensity of light, > which is proportional to the density of the photons, therefore decreases > with distance, even though no photons are lost. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Can you tell me if a star sends light for 12 billion LY by photons through empty space what is the initial intensity and what is it when it reaches us?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 18:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <073049a0-c9d0-4fdf-a047-f75face438ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398071 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 12:21:46 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > In summary, the density decreases as the photons spread out, even though > > no photons are lost and no photons are split up. The intensity of light, > > which is proportional to the density of the photons, therefore decreases > > with distance, even though no photons are lost. > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Can you tell me if a star sends light for 12 billion LY by photons through > empty space what is the initial intensity and what is it when it reaches us? Can't you figure this out for yourself? How can one give the initial intensity when you haven't specified the type of the star. Is it O, B, A, F, G, K or M? Over what wavelength range is this intensity to be limited? Total black body? Visible? Why do you ask such silly questions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 23:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b5b6bd7-d546-4475-902d-d18fe2400743@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398077 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 10:05:53 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 12:21:46 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > In summary, the density decreases as the photons spread out, even though > > > no photons are lost and no photons are split up. The intensity of light, > > > which is proportional to the density of the photons, therefore decreases > > > with distance, even though no photons are lost. > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Can you tell me if a star sends light for 12 billion LY by photons through > > empty space what is the initial intensity and what is it when it reaches us? > > Can't you figure this out for yourself? How can one give the initial > intensity when you haven't specified the type of the star. Is it O, B, A, > F, G, K or M? Over what wavelength range is this intensity to be limited? > Total black body? Visible? > I suggest the brightest star. Use some imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 10:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvuqlp$lpv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398089 |
On 11/09/2016 08:58 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 10:05:53 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can you tell me if a star sends light for 12 billion LY by photons through >>> empty space what is the initial intensity and what is it when it reaches us? >> >> Can't you figure this out for yourself? How can one give the initial >> intensity when you haven't specified the type of the star. Is it O, B, A, >> F, G, K or M? Over what wavelength range is this intensity to be limited? >> Total black body? Visible? >> > I suggest the brightest star. Use some imagination. Why not to used it before putting the question in the first place ? As to know the result there is needed *much* more information than you suppose is sufficient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 04:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa39ad13-6930-4338-8eae-c6696098edf9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398093 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:36:23 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 11/09/2016 08:58 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 10:05:53 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Can you tell me if a star sends light for 12 billion LY by photons through > >>> empty space what is the initial intensity and what is it when it reaches us? > >> > >> Can't you figure this out for yourself? How can one give the initial > >> intensity when you haven't specified the type of the star. Is it O, B, A, > >> F, G, K or M? Over what wavelength range is this intensity to be limited? > >> Total black body? Visible? > >> > > I suggest the brightest star. Use some imagination. > > Why not to used it > before putting the question in the first place ? > > As to know the result > there is needed *much* more information than you suppose is sufficient. Use a bright star at 12 billion LY in one direction and another faint star at 12 billion LY in another direction. Calculate the number of photons emitted and the number of photons, if any, received by an observer on earth. It should be easy for a bright kid like Bod. Too difficult for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 14:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvv6rs$4bs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398100 |
On 11/09/2016 01:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:36:23 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> On 11/09/2016 08:58 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 10:05:53 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can you tell me if a star sends light for 12 billion LY by photons through >>>>> empty space what is the initial intensity and what is it when it reaches us? >>>> >>>> Can't you figure this out for yourself? How can one give the initial >>>> intensity when you haven't specified the type of the star. Is it O, B, A, >>>> F, G, K or M? Over what wavelength range is this intensity to be limited? >>>> Total black body? Visible? >>>> >>> I suggest the brightest star. Use some imagination. >> >> Why not to used it >> before putting the question in the first place ? >> >> As to know the result >> there is needed *much* more information than you suppose is sufficient. > > Use a bright star at 12 billion LY in one direction and another faint star at 12 billion LY in another direction. Calculate the number of photons emitted and the number of photons, if any, received by an observer on earth. It should be easy for a bright kid like Bod. Too difficult for me. Your should return back to Newton mechanics you had troubles with and learn the basics of history and advances of physics since then. You repeat over and over science has no idea about subject, while you have no idea what science says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 10:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvurhr$ogp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398089 |
On 11/09/2016 08:58 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > I suggest the brightest star. Use some imagination. You have not explained yet, why you think the inverse square law of light propagation requires force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 04:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73bef95d-2b1c-4d84-8269-1ad5ed632d43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398094 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:51:22 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 11/09/2016 08:58 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > I suggest the brightest star. Use some imagination. > > You have not explained yet, why you think > the inverse square law of light propagation requires force. The inverse square law has the effect of reducing the initial intensity of an electromagnetic or gravity source by the square of the distance. Newton stated "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it". Einstein declared space to be empty. According to Newton and Einstein photons will continue by their initial velocity if no force slows them down. The aether provides such a force. Bod suggested the intensity decrease of light transmitted by photons is due to their density diminishing as they disperse at an angle from the source. Does he believe gravity is tranmitted by photons?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvv6e7$330$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398099 |
On 11/09/2016 01:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:51:22 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> On 11/09/2016 08:58 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> >>> I suggest the brightest star. Use some imagination. >> >> You have not explained yet, why you think >> the inverse square law of light propagation requires force. > > The inverse square law has the effect of reducing the initial > intensity of an electromagnetic or gravity source by the square > of the distance.[....] sure, but no need of force for it. > [...].Newton stated "Every object in a state of uniform > motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external > force is applied to it". [...] Sure, but no relation to geometry, aside of Noether theorem about symmetries and conservation laws. > [...] Einstein declared space to be empty. Sure, but in different context. > According to Newton and Einstein photons will continue by their > initial velocity if no force slows them down. It is one of you many misinterpretations. Newton mechanics is not aware of photons. Quantum mechanics says photons cannot be slowed down. Photons are not subjects of Newton mechnanics. > The aether provides such a force. This still DOES NOT explain the need of force in the inverse square law of light propagation. > > Bod suggested the intensity decrease of light transmitted by > photons is due to their density diminishing as they disperse > at an angle from the source. Does he believe > gravity is tranmitted by photons? It looks like YOU believe gravity is related to photons, otherwise you would not bring the gravity subject. You really need learn, then not complain but learn, then not complain but learn and discuss, then learn agains and perhaps complain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 16:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <88b8b02f-1b47-407e-a47d-c8d94e5f2c91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398101 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:57:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > > It looks like YOU believe gravity is related to photons, > otherwise you would not bring the gravity subject. > Bod believes the intensity of light is caused by the density of photons being diluted according to the inverse square law. I want to know from him if gravity has the same dilution occuring and how?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 02:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o00jq1$gb2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398149 |
Dne 10/11/2016 v 01:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:57:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> >> It looks like YOU believe gravity is related to photons, >> otherwise you would not bring the gravity subject. >> > Bod believes the intensity of light is caused by the density of photons being diluted according to the inverse square law. I want to know from him if gravity has the same dilution occuring and how? > Physicists know it. This knowledge is awaiting you impatiently. Gravity is not mediated by photons, so why do you ask ? -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 21:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <807ec467-7f69-4bf2-8ee3-849a4b5ed58f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398160 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:51:28 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 10/11/2016 v 01:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:57:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >> > >> It looks like YOU believe gravity is related to photons, > >> otherwise you would not bring the gravity subject. > >> > > Bod believes the intensity of light is caused by the density of photons being diluted according to the inverse square law. I want to know from him if gravity has the same dilution occuring and how? > > > Physicists know it. This knowledge is awaiting you impatiently. > > Gravity is not mediated by photons, so why do you ask ? > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. Light and gravity are both subject to the inverse square law and both are transmitted by the aether. Bod's explanation for light will not work for gravity. I have given him the opportunity to explain how the inverse square law works in the case of gravity. Neither he, you, SR or GR is not able to do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 07:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0144f$oef$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398175 |
Dne 10/11/2016 v 06:36 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:51:28 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 10/11/2016 v 01:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:57:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >>>> >>>> It looks like YOU believe gravity is related to photons, >>>> otherwise you would not bring the gravity subject. >>>> >>> Bod believes the intensity of light is caused by the density of photons being diluted according to the inverse square law. I want to know from him if gravity has the same dilution occuring and how? >>> >> Physicists know it. This knowledge is awaiting you impatiently. >> >> Gravity is not mediated by photons, so why do you ask ? >> > > Light and gravity are both subject to the inverse square law and both are transmitted by the aether. Bod's explanation for light will not work for gravity. I have given him the opportunity to explain how the inverse square law works in the case of gravity. Neither he, you, SR or GR is not able to do so. You confuse 2 inverse square laws. The former is about geometry, the latter about force. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 11:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o02br6$1t8j$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398175 |
On 11/9/2016 11:36 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:51:28 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 10/11/2016 v 01:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:57:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >>>> >>>> It looks like YOU believe gravity is related to photons, >>>> otherwise you would not bring the gravity subject. >>>> >>> Bod believes the intensity of light is caused by the density of photons >>> being diluted according to the inverse square law. I want to know from >>> him if gravity has the same dilution occuring and how? >>> >> Physicists know it. This knowledge is awaiting you impatiently. >> >> Gravity is not mediated by photons, so why do you ask ? >> >> -- >> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) >> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. > > Light and gravity are both subject to the inverse square law and both are > transmitted by the aether. Bod's explanation for light will not work for > gravity. The explanation I gave works for sound, for earthquake vibrations, for gas dispersal, for fireworks fragments, none of which are photons. Take a look at the explanation again and see if you can see how it works for those other cases that are not photons. This way you can see how it might work for gravity as well. > I have given him the opportunity to explain how the inverse square > law works in the case of gravity. Neither he, you, SR or GR is not able to do so. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 16:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa09b3ba-57ad-48c5-b867-b6f7557e5c4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398201 |
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 1:47:21 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > The explanation I gave works for sound, for earthquake vibrations, for > gas dispersal, for fireworks fragments, none of which are photons. Take > a look at the explanation again and see if you can see how it works for > those other cases that are not photons. This way you can see how it > might work for gravity as well. > Light, gravity and the others are subject to the inverse square law. It must be one and the same process for all of them. Only the aether does provide it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 17:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d90d1223-2971-40ae-a45f-dd147a0968d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398232 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 1:47:21 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > The explanation I gave works for sound, for earthquake vibrations, for > > gas dispersal, for fireworks fragments, none of which are photons. Take > > a look at the explanation again and see if you can see how it works for > > those other cases that are not photons. This way you can see how it > > might work for gravity as well. > > > > Light, gravity and the others are subject to the inverse square law. It must be one and the same process for all of them. Only the aether does provide it. Cretin. Incurable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 07:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o03p3e$use$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398232 |
Dne 11/11/2016 v 01:29 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 1:47:21 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> The explanation I gave works for sound, for earthquake vibrations, for >> gas dispersal, for fireworks fragments, none of which are photons. Take >> a look at the explanation again and see if you can see how it works for >> those other cases that are not photons. This way you can see how it >> might work for gravity as well. >> > > Light, gravity and the others are subject to the inverse square law. It must be one and the same process for all of them. Only the aether does provide it. It is like saying a crane ( engineering ), a crane ( tree ) and a crane ( bird ) must look and behave the same, as they have the same name. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 08:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o03rnd$hjl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398232 |
Dne 11/11/2016 v 01:29 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 1:47:21 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> The explanation I gave works for sound, for earthquake vibrations, for >> gas dispersal, for fireworks fragments, none of which are photons. Take >> a look at the explanation again and see if you can see how it works for >> those other cases that are not photons. This way you can see how it >> might work for gravity as well. >> > > Light, gravity and the others are subject to the inverse square law. It must be one and the same process for all of them. Only the aether does provide it. Why do you think your wishes and fantasies are supported by any mathematical model and experimental agreement ? -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 08:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o04lss$16do$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398232 |
On 11/10/2016 6:29 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 1:47:21 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> The explanation I gave works for sound, for earthquake vibrations, for >> gas dispersal, for fireworks fragments, none of which are photons. Take >> a look at the explanation again and see if you can see how it works for >> those other cases that are not photons. This way you can see how it >> might work for gravity as well. >> > > Light, gravity and the others are subject to the inverse square law. Yes. > It must be one and the same process for all of them. No. Absolutely no basis for that statement. There are lots of common phenomena that occur via completely different mechanisms. > Only the aether does provide it. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web