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 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 04:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9f2b70b-a037-4e3f-bca0-cff29d77611f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398474 |
On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 11:09:37 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/9/16 11/9/16 6:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > If a star emits light by photons, they will disperse spherically and the > > distance between the photons will increase according to the sqare of the > > distance. > > No. The distance between a given pair of photons emitted from a point source > radially in slightly different directions diverges LINEARLY with distance. But > the number of photons per area decreases as the square of the distance, and that > is how light intensity decreases. > > I'm speaking loosely, ignoring the quantum aspects of photons. > > > !2 billion LY is too great a distance for light to impact as a > > group of photons; their density has been diluted too much. > > Hmmm. At such a distance we don't observe stars, we observe galaxies. > > Counting just visible photons, the sun emits on the order of 10^45 photons per > second, isotropically. A sphere with radius 1 ly has an area ~ 10^37 cm^2. So at > a distance of 1 lightyear the sun's intensity is ~ 10^8 photons/sec/cm^2, which > would be easily visible to a naked eye. At 1000 ly that would be ~ 100 > photons/sec/cm^2, still visible to a naked eye. At 2 billion ly a galaxy with > 10^11 suns would not be visible to a naked eye, but probably is visible to > Hubble with a long enough exposure. There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. > > > Light is > > transmitted by wawes, not photons. > > You keep claiming this without any evidence. There are MANY aspects of light > that cannot be explained by waves, but are explained by QED (and its photons). > Your "arguments" against photons do not hold up, basically because you are so > ignorant about very basic physics; you are also quite stupid because you make no > attempt to cure your colossal ignorance. Describing a photon as a wave-packet explains all aspects of QED.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 07:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0ceeq$gun$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398487 |
On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and > no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 06:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <13af5a16-fdfa-487a-8247-f0885d45e896@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398493 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > > There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and > > no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. > > It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by > the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. > Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make to make such calculations?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 08:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0cj03$qj6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398494 |
On 11/14/2016 8:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and >>> no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. >> >> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by >> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. >> > > Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make to > make such calculations? > None. The total energy radiance of the sun is MEASURED. The wavelength spectrum of the sun is MEASURED. From that wavelength spectrum, one can easily calculate the weighted average radiance over all wavelengths. Scaling up to the total energy radiance of the sun tells you the total number of photons. This is a standard spectrum calculation that ANY physicist can do. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0ct3e$8a3$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #398494 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and >> > no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. >> >> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by >> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. >> >Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make >to make such calculations? None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. We measure the power of the sun on earth. We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a whole. (we can, but don't have to, simplify things by just calculating for visible light, which is most of the sun's energy)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f0b97ee-4bbc-4e6b-a4d5-56ff282463ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398503 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and > >> > no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. > >> > >> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by > >> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. > >> > > >Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make > >to make such calculations? > > None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. > We measure the power of the sun on earth. > We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. > From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on > earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a > whole. How many gamma photons? How many ultraviolet photons? How many X-ray photons? etc....etc. > > (we can, but don't have to, simplify things by just calculating for visible > light, which is most of the sun's energy)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0d380$fdn$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #398510 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> > There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and >> >> > no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. >> >> >> >> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by >> >> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. >> >> >> >> >Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make >> >to make such calculations? >> >> None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. >> We measure the power of the sun on earth. >> We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. >> From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on >> earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a >> whole. >How many gamma photons? How many ultraviolet photons? How many X-ray photons? >etc....etc. Again, easily done. Measure the intensity of gamma rays, X-rays at each frequency, calculate the energy of each photon from E=hf, from that and the intensity, calculate the number of photons, and add them up. So you get n = E_tot(f)/hf where E_tot(f) is the total energy at frequency f, and n is the number of photons with frequency f.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 16:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0df0m$eet$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398510 |
On 11/14/2016 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and >>>>> no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. >>>> >>>> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by >>>> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. >>>> >> >>> Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make >>> to make such calculations? >> >> None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. >> We measure the power of the sun on earth. >> We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. >> From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on >> earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a >> whole. > > How many gamma photons? How many ultraviolet photons? How many X-ray photons? etc....etc. Well, here's the spectrum: https://i0.wp.com/www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/figure2.3.gif So now, since the ranges for what constitutes an X-ray or a UV photon are somewhat arbitrary, say where you think the boundary is between, say, UV and X-ray, and between X-ray and gamma, and we can use this plot to do the calculation together. >> >> (we can, but don't have to, simplify things by just calculating for visible >> light, which is most of the sun's energy) > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 12:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <319a1127-ec68-4b00-bb72-fe345d30f206@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398530 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 5:48:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/14/2016 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and > >>>>> no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. > >>>> > >>>> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by > >>>> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. > >>>> > >> > >>> Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make > >>> to make such calculations? > >> > >> None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. > >> We measure the power of the sun on earth. > >> We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. > >> From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on > >> earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a > >> whole. > > > > How many gamma photons? How many ultraviolet photons? How many X-ray photons? etc....etc. > > Well, here's the spectrum: > https://i0.wp.com/www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/figure2.3.gif > So now, since the ranges for what constitutes an X-ray or a UV photon > are somewhat arbitrary, say where you think the boundary is between, > say, UV and X-ray, and between X-ray and gamma, and we can use this plot > to do the calculation together. clearly this doesn't tell you how many gamma, x-ray or uv photons per second were generated by the sun. This means that Tom Roberts' calculations were based on dubious assumptions and that's what was my point. > > >> > >> (we can, but don't have to, simplify things by just calculating for visible > >> light, which is most of the sun's energy) > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 13:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <728f6318-b5d0-439b-8241-aac4f72681b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398558 |
> Well, here's the spectrum: > https://i0.wp.com/www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/figure2.3.gif > So now, since the ranges for what constitutes an X-ray or a UV photon > are somewhat arbitrary, say where you think the boundary is between, > say, UV and X-ray, and between X-ray and gamma, and we can use this plot > to do the calculation together. clearly this doesn't tell you how many gamma, x-ray or uv photons per second were generated by the sun. This means that Tom Roberts' calculations were based on dubious assumptions and that's what was my point. ((3.84600e+26 watts) / (4 * pi)) / ((1.49600e+11 + 7.95700e+8)^2) = 1353.0959 watts 1 / (160.2 billion Hz * ((74000 meters) / (1 Mpc)) * c) = 0.00868231645 s2 / m Parallax for dispersion of individual photons 115.1766/Radius^2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 14:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9521c090-745d-4e5f-a9c2-1dddb9a2b480@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398561 |
((3.84600e+26 watts) / (4 * pi)) / ((1.49600e+11 + 7.95700e+8)^2) = 1353.0959 watts 1 / (160.2 billion Hz * ((74000 meters) / (1 Mpc)) * c) = 0.00868231645 s2 / m Parallax for dispersion of individual photons 115.1766/Radius^2 (((160.2 billion Hz) / 376.7303462) / c) / (2^0.5) = 1.00298908 (160.2 billion hertz) / 1.00298908 = 1.59722576e+11 hertz ((((160.2 billion Hz) / 1.00298908) / 299792458) / 376.730313462)^2 = 2.00000036 ((((160.2 billion Hz) / 1.00298908) / c) / 376.730313462)^2 = 2.0 meters per meter^3 1 / 1.00298908 = 0.99701982797 tau * 0.159722576 = 1.00356654275
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 14:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9fe65f2b-2c0b-4a27-b6ac-4a3b0f2b475d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398567 |
(((160.2 billion Hz) / 376.730313462) / c) / (2^0.5) = 1.00298917 (((159.722562 billion Hz) / 376.730313462) / c) / (2^0.5) = 1 m/s Looking at CMBR is looking "back out" through Hawking radiation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 15:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0fugt$6q5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398558 |
On 11/15/2016 2:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 5:48:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/14/2016 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and >>>>>>> no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by >>>>>> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make >>>>> to make such calculations? >>>> >>>> None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. >>>> We measure the power of the sun on earth. >>>> We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. >>>> From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on >>>> earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a >>>> whole. >>> >>> How many gamma photons? How many ultraviolet photons? How many X-ray photons? etc....etc. >> >> Well, here's the spectrum: >> https://i0.wp.com/www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/figure2.3.gif >> So now, since the ranges for what constitutes an X-ray or a UV photon >> are somewhat arbitrary, say where you think the boundary is between, >> say, UV and X-ray, and between X-ray and gamma, and we can use this plot >> to do the calculation together. > > clearly this doesn't tell you how many gamma, x-ray or uv photons per second were generated > by the sun. This means that Tom Roberts' calculations were based on dubious assumptions and > that's what was my point. First of all, you lost track of who did the calculations and posted them. Secondly, the calculation was based on the overall spectrum, and does not rely on adding up contributions from X-rays, gamma rays, UV, separately. Thirdly, since YOU were the one that brought up those categories, it's up to YOU to say what the boundaries are between the categories YOU mentioned, and then the calculation can be done. >> >>>> >>>> (we can, but don't have to, simplify things by just calculating for visible >>>> light, which is most of the sun's energy) >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 14:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a8114af-0854-4788-9c57-9579057e6592@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398562 |
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 4:25:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/15/2016 2:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 5:48:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/14/2016 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and > >>>>>>> no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by > >>>>>> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make > >>>>> to make such calculations? > >>>> > >>>> None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. > >>>> We measure the power of the sun on earth. > >>>> We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. > >>>> From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on > >>>> earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a > >>>> whole. > >>> > >>> How many gamma photons? How many ultraviolet photons? How many X-ray photons? etc....etc. > >> > >> Well, here's the spectrum: > >> https://i0.wp.com/www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/figure2.3.gif > >> So now, since the ranges for what constitutes an X-ray or a UV photon > >> are somewhat arbitrary, say where you think the boundary is between, > >> say, UV and X-ray, and between X-ray and gamma, and we can use this plot > >> to do the calculation together. > > > > clearly this doesn't tell you how many gamma, x-ray or uv photons per second were generated > > by the sun. This means that Tom Roberts' calculations were based on dubious assumptions and > > that's what was my point. > > First of all, you lost track of who did the calculations and posted > them. Tom Roberts posted them. >Secondly, the calculation was based on the overall spectrum, and > does not rely on adding up contributions from X-rays, gamma rays, UV, > separately. Tom posted that the number of photons per second generated by the sun.....I questioned such calculations because we don't know how many from x-ray, gamma and uv...etc photons were generated. >Thirdly, since YOU were the one that brought up those > categories, it's up to YOU to say what the boundaries are between the don't know how many he > categories YOU mentioned, and then the calculation can be done. Why do I have to set up the boundaries? .......I questioned Tom how he came up with those numbers not knowing the number of photons were generated of each category. Also you claimed that it is very easy to do such calculations so why don't you tell us how. > > >> > >>>> > >>>> (we can, but don't have to, simplify things by just calculating for visible > >>>> light, which is most of the sun's energy) > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 09:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0htog$uf7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398564 |
On 11/15/2016 4:00 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 4:25:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 2:32 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 5:48:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/14/2016 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and >>>>>>>>> no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by >>>>>>>> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make >>>>>>> to make such calculations? >>>>>> >>>>>> None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. >>>>>> We measure the power of the sun on earth. >>>>>> We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. >>>>>> From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on >>>>>> earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a >>>>>> whole. >>>>> >>>>> How many gamma photons? How many ultraviolet photons? How many X-ray photons? etc....etc. >>>> >>>> Well, here's the spectrum: >>>> https://i0.wp.com/www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/figure2.3.gif >>>> So now, since the ranges for what constitutes an X-ray or a UV photon >>>> are somewhat arbitrary, say where you think the boundary is between, >>>> say, UV and X-ray, and between X-ray and gamma, and we can use this plot >>>> to do the calculation together. >>> >>> clearly this doesn't tell you how many gamma, x-ray or uv photons per second were generated >>> by the sun. This means that Tom Roberts' calculations were based on dubious assumptions and >>> that's what was my point. >> >> First of all, you lost track of who did the calculations and posted >> them. > > Tom Roberts posted them. Poutnik posted them on November 11 in a thread entitled "Nature eschews photons". Tom's numbers were posted on November 13, and in that post the number was explicitly stated as *visible* photons. Your response to that was to ask how many of those *visible* photons are from gammas, X-rays, and UV. If you knew anything, you would know none of those categories belong to visible light. Poutnik showed where the numbers come from. Tom's numbers are completely consistent with them and are therefore justified. > >> Secondly, the calculation was based on the overall spectrum, and >> does not rely on adding up contributions from X-rays, gamma rays, UV, >> separately. > > Tom posted that the number of photons per second generated by the sun. > ....I questioned such calculations because we don't know how many from > x-ray, gamma and uv...etc photons were generated. You don't NEED to know them by category and then add them up. All you need is the TOTAL power radiated and the spectrum over all wavelengths. I already explained that to you on November 10, and then Poutnik did that calculation on November 11, and then you questioned Tom's completely consistent result cited on November 13. > >> Thirdly, since YOU were the one that brought up those >> categories, it's up to YOU to say what the boundaries are between the don't know how many he >> categories YOU mentioned, and then the calculation can be done. > > > Why do I have to set up the boundaries? .......I questioned Tom how he came up with > those numbers not knowing the number of photons were generated of each category. Already explained. > Also you claimed that it is very easy to do such calculations so why don't you tell us how. Already done. Already performed by Poutnik. >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (we can, but don't have to, simplify things by just calculating for visible >>>>>> light, which is most of the sun's energy) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 08:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <484148b0-3f6a-4e2d-9586-2cab29c67aa2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398607 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 10:25:07 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/15/2016 4:00 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 4:25:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/15/2016 2:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 5:48:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/14/2016 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:33:17 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 11/14/2016 6:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> There is no basis for these numbers. The truth is you don't know and > >>>>>>>>> no body knows how many photons (wave-packet) emits by the sun per second. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It is simply NOT TRUE that nobody knows how many photons are emitted by > >>>>>>>> the sun per second. This is pretty easily calculated. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument.....how many assumptions you have to make > >>>>>>> to make such calculations? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> None, other than assuming the sun radiates equally in all directions. > >>>>>> We measure the power of the sun on earth. > >>>>>> We measure the spectral distribution of energy from the sun. > >>>>>> From this we can calculate the number of photons per square meter on > >>>>>> earth at each frequency, and add them up, and add up for the sun as a > >>>>>> whole. > >>>>> > >>>>> How many gamma photons? How many ultraviolet photons? How many X-ray photons? etc....etc. > >>>> > >>>> Well, here's the spectrum: > >>>> https://i0.wp.com/www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/figure2.3.gif > >>>> So now, since the ranges for what constitutes an X-ray or a UV photon > >>>> are somewhat arbitrary, say where you think the boundary is between, > >>>> say, UV and X-ray, and between X-ray and gamma, and we can use this plot > >>>> to do the calculation together. > >>> > >>> clearly this doesn't tell you how many gamma, x-ray or uv photons per second were generated > >>> by the sun. This means that Tom Roberts' calculations were based on dubious assumptions and > >>> that's what was my point. > >> > >> First of all, you lost track of who did the calculations and posted > >> them. > > > > Tom Roberts posted them. > > Poutnik posted them on November 11 in a thread entitled "Nature eschews > photons". Tom's numbers were posted on November 13, and in that post the > number was explicitly stated as *visible* photons. Your response to that > was to ask how many of those *visible* photons are from gammas, X-rays, > and UV. If you knew anything, you would know none of those categories > belong to visible light. Poutnik showed where the numbers come from. > Tom's numbers are completely consistent with them and are therefore > justified. > > > > >> Secondly, the calculation was based on the overall spectrum, and > >> does not rely on adding up contributions from X-rays, gamma rays, UV, > >> separately. > > > > Tom posted that the number of photons per second generated by the sun. > > ....I questioned such calculations because we don't know how many from > > x-ray, gamma and uv...etc photons were generated. > > You don't NEED to know them by category and then add them up. All you > need is the TOTAL power radiated and the spectrum over all wavelengths. > I already explained that to you on November 10, and then Poutnik did > that calculation on November 11, and then you questioned Tom's > completely consistent result cited on November 13. > How do you know the total power? Wavelengths change over distance. I did not read any of POUTNIK's posts. I still think that Tom's numbers are based on some faulty assumptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 10:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0km7e$15c0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398699 |
On 11/17/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > How do you know the total power? Power of the sun is measured by sampling it from different distances, both at the distance of the earth from surface laboratories and orbiting laboratories above the atmosphere, and also from launched probes that travel near the sun. > Wavelengths change over distance. A *very* small amount over the distances involved here. This is directly measured by sampling the power at different distances as described above. This is a MEASURED quantity and very well known, which you would know if you simply took the trouble to Google "power output of Sun". > I did not read any of POUTNIK's posts. Not my problem. The point is that the calculation of the number of photons is absolutely straightforward and involves no assumptions, as both Tom, Poutnik, and I pointed out to you. > I still think that Tom's numbers are based on some faulty assumptions. You have no basis for saying that. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 12:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ee634c2-3291-4acb-b19c-776a1b617e1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398474 |
On November 13, tjrob137 wrote: > The distance between a given pair of photons emitted from a point source > radially in slightly different directions diverges LINEARLY with distance. > But the number of photons per area decreases as the square of the distance, > and that is how light intensity decreases. > Counting just visible photons, the sun emits on the order of 10^45 > photons per second, isotropically. A sphere with radius 1 ly has an area ~ > 10^37 cm^2. So at a distance of 1 lightyear the sun's intensity is ~ 10^8 > photons/sec/cm^2, What's the entropy increase, per second, due to the sun's radiation? Or, the entropy increase of any point source, at a given temperature? There must be a textbook formula for this - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 12:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f5591ef-c321-4e25-b40f-888be5e93b4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398520 |
Solar mass - Mass lost per second converting hydrogen to helium = change in entropy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0hp3p$m3t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398474 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > No. The distance between a given pair of photons emitted from a point > source radially in slightly different directions diverges LINEARLY with > distance. But the number of photons per area decreases as the square of > the distance, and that is how light intensity decreases. If what you just said would had been true, having free uncoupled PHOTONS travelling InterGalacticly would be not possible. Since outthere photons are rare. [exercise to the reader] (Human eye can detect 10 photons) (less than that is what we erronously call for being Dark.) How dark has to be in order to become really really Dark??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web