Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460343 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-16 15:44 -0700 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 29 participants
Thread has 1718 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity | Browse in flat view
Thread has 1718 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-04 17:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 18:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-04 21:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 22:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-05 05:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 05:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-05 19:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 23:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 08:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-06 15:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 09:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 13:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 14:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 17:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 20:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 22:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 00:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 06:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 13:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 08:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 15:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 16:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 22:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 23:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 01:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 09:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-08 18:43 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 14:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-08 17:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 14:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 22:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 21:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 09:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 13:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 14:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 22:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 14:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 08:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 15:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 09:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-11 18:24 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 09:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 12:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 16:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 18:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 23:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 05:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-09 16:17 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 08:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:28 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 12:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-10 01:56 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 10:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 12:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 14:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 08:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 16:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 20:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 20:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 22:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 23:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 08:16 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 07:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 10:30 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 08:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 08:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 12:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 15:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 15:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 06:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-11 23:23 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 15:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-12 01:45 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 15:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 19:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 21:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 21:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 06:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 13:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 19:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 21:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 23:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 05:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 05:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-12 15:03 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 17:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 13:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 19:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 05:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 13:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 19:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 19:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 07:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 15:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-13 08:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 16:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 16:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 13:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 16:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 16:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-15 01:27 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 16:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-15 01:48 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 17:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 14:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 08:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 16:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 10:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 10:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 11:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 12:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 13:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 16:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 17:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 18:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 20:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 21:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 21:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 23:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 00:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 01:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 01:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-16 13:15 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 08:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-16 18:01 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 10:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 18:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 12:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 21:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 02:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 10:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 11:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 15:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 03:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 09:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 15:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-18 01:17 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 16:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-18 02:06 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 17:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-18 02:38 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-18 03:13 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-18 04:05 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 19:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 16:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 17:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 20:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 21:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 23:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 06:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-18 15:37 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 07:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-18 22:49 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 16:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 08:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-18 08:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 08:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 08:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 09:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 16:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 19:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 21:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 22:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 19:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 23:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 06:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 07:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 08:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 08:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gerald Kelleher <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 23:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 06:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 00:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 18:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 01:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 23:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 08:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 10:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 18:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 11:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 19:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 07:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 08:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-24 00:24 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 23:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-24 12:05 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 07:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-25 02:05 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 20:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-25 05:28 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 20:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 07:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-24 16:36 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 14:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-25 01:37 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 20:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-25 05:32 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-24 20:07 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 19:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-25 04:18 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 20:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 23:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 19:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 14:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 07:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 09:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 16:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 20:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-19 14:37 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 16:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-20 07:59 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 23:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-20 15:46 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 07:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-20 19:58 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 11:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-21 02:21 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-21 03:02 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 23:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 06:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 09:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 11:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 12:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 13:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 15:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 18:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 19:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 20:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 20:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-22 01:01 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 23:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 06:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 09:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 10:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-22 20:07 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 12:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-23 11:08 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 08:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 12:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 12:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 13:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 13:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 15:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 17:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 18:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 18:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 20:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 21:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 22:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 05:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-23 14:56 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 06:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-23 15:23 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 09:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-23 18:14 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 09:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-23 18:25 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 11:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-25 22:10 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 14:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-25 23:54 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-26 00:09 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 15:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 07:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 15:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-26 20:53 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 09:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 11:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 13:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 20:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 23:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-24 06:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 07:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-24 07:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 14:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-24 15:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 19:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-24 21:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 21:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-24 23:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 07:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 14:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 07:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 09:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 16:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 11:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-25 14:13 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-25 22:59 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 07:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 10:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 11:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 12:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 15:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 23:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 19:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 13:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 15:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 16:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 16:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 16:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 17:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 20:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 20:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 06:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-26 06:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 07:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 14:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 07:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 11:20 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 16:53 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 14:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 22:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 15:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 22:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 18:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 18:54 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 20:21 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 15:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 13:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 17:00 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 14:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 22:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 00:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 18:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 18:50 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 22:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 15:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-26 15:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-26 17:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 18:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 22:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 19:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 12:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 12:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 22:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 19:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 13:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 10:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 18:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 19:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 21:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 17:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 12:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 08:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 08:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 08:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 10:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-26 12:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 13:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-26 14:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 15:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 18:52 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 20:26 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 18:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-26 22:13 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 23:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 17:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-28 18:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 20:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-28 21:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 00:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 11:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 11:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 13:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 13:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 17:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 19:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 20:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 20:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 22:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 21:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 22:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 23:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 05:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-30 14:51 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 06:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-30 15:40 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 07:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 09:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 17:10 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 12:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 21:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 14:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 22:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 23:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 05:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 09:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 16:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 12:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 21:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 14:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-30 11:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 12:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-06-30 18:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 22:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 00:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 06:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 10:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 13:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 14:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 21:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 16:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 01:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 19:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 17:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 18:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 18:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 20:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 22:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-02 08:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 09:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-02 14:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 15:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-02 18:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 21:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-02 22:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 04:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-03 05:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-03 17:14 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 08:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-03 18:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 00:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-04 09:04 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 10:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-04 13:44 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 13:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-07-04 10:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 10:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-04 13:56 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 14:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-04 17:50 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 16:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-05 01:48 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 19:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-04 19:52 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 19:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 10:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 10:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 13:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 14:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 02:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-05 21:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 22:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 22:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 20:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-06 14:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 17:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 03:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 21:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 04:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 03:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 11:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 06:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 15:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-07 12:56 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 13:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-07 19:21 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 04:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-08 09:47 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 13:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 19:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 14:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 00:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-07 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 10:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 04:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 12:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 13:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 22:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 21:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 10:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 06:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Galin
Itnik
Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-09 14:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 07:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 07:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 11:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 07:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 23:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 22:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 17:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 03:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 21:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 10:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 04:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-10 13:42 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 05:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-10 14:58 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-10 15:11 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 06:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-10 16:39 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 11:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 06:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-10 16:38 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 11:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 05:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-10 14:57 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 06:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-10 16:37 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 11:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Galin
Itnik
Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-10 11:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 06:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 13:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 06:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 13:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 11:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 20:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 15:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 23:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 16:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 20:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-14 12:26 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 07:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-14 16:40 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 07:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-14 11:08 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 08:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-14 17:53 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 09:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-14 18:12 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 09:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-14 23:20 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-15 00:02 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-14 21:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 12:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-18 22:01 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 22:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 02:44 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-15 02:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 05:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 12:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 06:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 10:40 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-15 11:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 16:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 10:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 20:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 14:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 00:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 18:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 01:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 18:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 13:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 08:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 16:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 10:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 11:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 19:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 23:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 16:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 00:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 04:57 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 13:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 09:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 10:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-17 19:24 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 10:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 11:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 18:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 11:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 19:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 13:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 21:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 05:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 13:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 08:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 15:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 08:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 16:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 09:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-20 09:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 16:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-20 10:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 18:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 18:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 18:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 09:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-20 10:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 13:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 08:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 15:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 08:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 16:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 09:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 17:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 10:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 12:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 19:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-17 18:33 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 02:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 00:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 18:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 18:16 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 04:27 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-23 13:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 23:10 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 16:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 02:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 00:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 12:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 06:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 14:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:02 -0700
test Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 15:35 +0000
Re: test Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-07 22:33 +0200
Re: test dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-08-07 13:49 -0700
Re: test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 21:47 +0000
Re: test Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 06:17 +0200
Re: test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-08 17:06 +0000
Re: test Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:24 +0200
Re: test Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-08 10:53 +0000
Re: test Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 01:20 +0200
Re: test Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:52 -0700
Re: test dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-08-08 06:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-19 01:36 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:55 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-17 14:01 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 12:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 19:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-17 18:24 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-17 22:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 18:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-20 18:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 09:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 17:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 19:29 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <uluuuau@ydwnwedml.dd> - 2018-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 19:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 04:48 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 07:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 20:14 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 21:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 13:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 08:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-25 09:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 11:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 10:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 18:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 14:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-25 14:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-25 23:32 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-26 00:51 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-24 20:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 23:23 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-26 01:43 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 03:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-26 09:32 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 02:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-26 11:35 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-26 18:09 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-26 19:00 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-27 02:20 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-27 18:41 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 12:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 21:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 14:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 01:50 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 18:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 02:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-28 10:41 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 10:45 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 01:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 14:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 07:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 15:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 13:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 10:04 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 14:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 16:28 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 07:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 15:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 10:22 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 18:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 15:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 13:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 20:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-28 00:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 18:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-26 20:41 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-27 02:18 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 16:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-26 13:24 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-26 18:30 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-26 20:38 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-26 23:11 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-27 02:08 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-26 23:16 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 04:33 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 19:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 04:43 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 07:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 23:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 16:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-17 20:09 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 02:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 00:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 13:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 19:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 12:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-19 01:59 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 13:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 02:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 23:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 15:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 18:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 20:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 11:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 16:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 01:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 19:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 13:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 07:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 23:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-22 14:42 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 06:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 13:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 15:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 01:38 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 18:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 05:33 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 08:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 18:23 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-24 17:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 22:01 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 13:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 08:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 23:24 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-25 12:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-25 06:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 08:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-25 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 11:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-25 22:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 03:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-25 23:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 22:07 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 21:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 23:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 23:16 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-26 00:43 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 02:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 22:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-23 05:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 08:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 15:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-22 22:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 13:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 15:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 21:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 15:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 00:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-17 20:02 -0500
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 18:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 21:50 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 19:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-18 11:09 -0500
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:48 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-18 17:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-18 19:50 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwendn.dp> - 2018-07-26 18:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-27 02:00 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Wayne Dial <ulau@ydwindn.dp> - 2018-07-27 11:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-07-18 17:46 -0500
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 05:03 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 05:01 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 13:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 20:40 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 02:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-16 21:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-17 06:32 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 13:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 06:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 08:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-15 21:29 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 17:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-16 10:44 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 07:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-17 13:02 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 14:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Otto Snook <uot@wuoluo.uc> - 2018-07-17 22:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 02:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 00:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 13:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 17:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 02:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 23:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 15:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 18:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 20:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 11:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 17:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-20 22:02 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 17:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-21 11:06 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 19:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-18 12:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 21:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-18 21:26 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-20 21:57 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 17:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-21 13:21 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-21 04:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 07:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-21 19:32 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 11:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-21 20:50 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 23:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-22 10:04 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 06:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-14 10:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-14 13:36 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-14 14:08 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 11:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 02:36 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-14 12:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 02:41 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-15 02:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 10:28 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-15 11:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 18:11 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-15 21:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-17 07:00 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-16 23:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 12:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 13:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 14:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-15 18:04 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 17:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 06:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-16 06:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 07:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 09:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-16 17:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 10:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 15:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 15:44 -0700
Page 1 of 50 [1] 2 3 … 50 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and Galilean relativity |
| Message-ID | <dfb7e2d0-0c3e-4126-acff-4a921b357ae7@googlegroups.com> |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 11:59:17 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 11:17:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-7, : the two clocks show different > >>>> elapsed times. The part that is not representative of what's really > >>>> happening is your interpretation of that observation that they must then > >>>> have been running at different rates. That is not accurate and is > >>>> therefore sloppy language in the sense that it does not really describe > >>>> what happened to produce that observation. > >>>> > >>> You sound like James Clapper saying that he does not like the word spy. > >>> Of course he does not like the word spy. He used to be head of the CIA. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Well it’s amusing that you think that a discussion of scientific > >> explanations is reminiscent of the CIA. I’ll leave that mental association > >> to you. > >> > > Well, scientists and CIA members have very similar patterns of speech. > > I guess I could say the same thing about welders and televangelists. > I guess you could. Most of the welders I have known are not as sensitive as scientists seem to be.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 17:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2db423cf-2f82-4e5b-af67-c741962246b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460343 |
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 1:27:19 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > OK, the earth is moving in the Sun frame. What significance is > that supposed to have? Why is it more significant than the frame > of reference of a star in a galaxy seventeen trillion light years > away? The significance is that the earth is moving in a (roughly) circular orbit around the sun, so at different times of the year it is moving in every possible direction with it's orbital speed. This means that, regardless of how the Sun is moving relative to the putative ether, there will be a time of the year when the earth's orbital speed relative to the putative ether is adding to (or at least perpendicular to) the speed of the sun relative to the putative ether frame. Therefore, the earth's orbital speed is a lower bound on the speed with which the earth is moving relative to any fixed frame, including the putative ether frame. This is how Michelson computed a lower bound on how much fringe shift he should see. > The only thing I can see about it is that the sun is a tangible > thing that has the same frame of reference as the mythical ether No, not at all. The explanation is as given above (for the 3rd time). > Well, but the putative ether was found not to exist, so why is the > frame of reference of the putative ether still being used? It isn't, as explained above. Now that all of Robert's questions have been answered and his doubts resolved, let's just summarize: Experiments showed length contraction, which, in combination with the associated time dilation and synchronization, yields complete Lorentz invariance, meaning that inertial coordinate systems (the natural measures of space and time in any given frame of reference) are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 18:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0d76a02-0b28-4c76-9198-cf52df334654@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460349 |
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 1:27:19 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > OK, the earth is moving in the Sun frame. What significance is > > that supposed to have? Why is it more significant than the frame > > of reference of a star in a galaxy seventeen trillion light years > > away? > > The significance is that the earth is moving in a (roughly) circular orbit around the sun, so at different times of the year it is moving in every possible direction with it's orbital speed. This means that, regardless of how the Sun is moving relative to the putative ether, there will be a time of the year when the earth's orbital speed relative to the putative ether is adding to (or at least perpendicular to) the speed of the sun relative to the putative ether frame. Therefore, the earth's orbital speed is a lower bound on the speed with which the earth is moving relative to any fixed frame, including the putative ether frame. This is how Michelson computed a lower bound on how much fringe shift he should see. > > > The only thing I can see about it is that the sun is a tangible > > thing that has the same frame of reference as the mythical ether > > No, not at all. The explanation is as given above (for the 3rd time). > > > Well, but the putative ether was found not to exist, so why is the > > frame of reference of the putative ether still being used? > > It isn't, as explained above. > > Now that all of Robert's questions have been answered and his doubts resolved, let's just summarize: Experiments showed length contraction, which, in combination with the associated time dilation and synchronization, yields complete Lorentz invariance, meaning that inertial coordinate systems (the natural measures of space and time in any given frame of reference) are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations. Well, but you never explained why you are using the frame of reference of the putative ether if the putative ether does not exist. If the ether does not exist, then the electromagnetic waves are traveling at a speed of c relative to the interferometer, and that is really all your device proved other than the fact that there is no putative ether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <402d9231-2e88-41bc-9429-f2e488584444@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460352 |
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:54:26 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > Well, but you never explained why you are using the frame of reference > of the putative ether... We're not, as explained above (3 times). > If the ether does not exist, then the electromagnetic waves are > traveling at a speed of c relative to the interferometer, and that > is really all your device proved other than the fact that there is > no putative ether. Not true, because we consider the results of all the available experiments, not just one. It's well known (and obvious) that if light propagates at c relative to the source (attached to the interferometer), then no fringe shift would be expected even for Galilean relativity. However, we also know from many other experiments (and Maxwell's equations) that light propagates in vacuum at a speed that is independent of the speed of the source. This is what kills Galilean relativity, because it means the speed of a single pulse of light is c in terms of both the inertial coordinates of the earth and of the sun. According to Galilean relativity this is impossible, but the results of the experiments of Galileo, Young, Faraday, Michelson, Fizeau, stellar aberration, Trouton-Noble, etc, show that it is true. Therefore inertial coordinate systems are not related by Galilean transformations, they are related by Lorentz transformations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 22:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18fc6983-6316-4244-8df7-45351f7f41c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460367 |
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 9:16:00 PM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:54:26 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, but you never explained why you are using the frame of reference > > of the putative ether... > > We're not, as explained above (3 times). > > > If the ether does not exist, then the electromagnetic waves are > > traveling at a speed of c relative to the interferometer, and that > > is really all your device proved other than the fact that there is > > no putative ether. > > Not true, because we consider the results of all the available experiments, not just one. It's well known (and obvious) that if light propagates at c relative to the source (attached to the interferometer), then no fringe shift would be expected even for Galilean relativity. However, we also know from many other experiments (and Maxwell's equations) that light propagates in vacuum at a speed that is independent of the speed of the source. This is what kills Galilean relativity, because it means the speed of a single pulse of light is c in terms of both the inertial coordinates of the earth and of the sun. According to Galilean relativity this is impossible, but the results of the experiments of Galileo, Young, Faraday, Michelson, Fizeau, stellar aberration, Trouton-Noble, etc, show that it is true. Therefore inertial coordinate systems are not related by Galilean transformations, they are related by Lorentz transformations. Well, I showed you how to work the problem. You have one set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of the earth and another set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of the sun. A cesium atom on the sun has a different rate of transitions. Light will be traveling at c according to the transitions of a cesium atom on the sun. But with regard to your interferometer, it does not do what you think it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 05:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f3d7652-ccec-49c9-8f76-aa0bd885bab4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460370 |
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:06:28 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > Well, I showed you how to work the problem. You have one set of > Galilean transformation equations for the time of the earth and > another set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of > the sun. Simply re-scaling the time coordinate doesn't accurately conform to the observed phenomena, as explained in detail in the previous messages. Relativistic effects have nothing to do with changing the numerical units of the time coordinate. You saw this yourself when you tried to create coordinates in terms of which light propagates at c in both directions, remember? You succeeded in finding such coordinates, and even got the right speed composition formula, but only by a transformation that gives too much and non-isotropic length contraction. Now you contradict yourself (again) by reverting back to the Galilean transformation and an arbitrary re-scaling that is applied inconsistently. > A cesium atom on the sun has a different rate of transitions. Now you're changing the subject again. We're not talking about gravitational effects, we're talking about the rest frame of the sun in the far field. > But with regard to your interferometer, it does not do what you think > it does. I think it works the same way the man who invented and built it thought it works, and the same way people who have spent their lives designing and building and operating them think they work. It's a relatively simple principle of operation. What is the basis of your claim that it doesn't work the way everyone (but you) thinks it works? Have you studied it with the same care that you studied the Michelson experimental apparatus (when you thought the light source was moving relative to the apparatus)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 05:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcdca12b-31b2-4dd2-b773-334dbe501d45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460380 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 5:02:36 AM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:06:28 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, I showed you how to work the problem. You have one set of > > Galilean transformation equations for the time of the earth and > > another set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of > > the sun. > > Simply re-scaling the time coordinate doesn't accurately conform to the observed phenomena, as explained in detail in the previous messages. Relativistic effects have nothing to do with changing the numerical units of the time coordinate. You saw this yourself when you tried to create coordinates in terms of which light propagates at c in both directions, remember? You succeeded in finding such coordinates, and even got the right speed composition formula, but only by a transformation that gives too much and non-isotropic length contraction. Now you contradict yourself (again) by reverting back to the Galilean transformation and an arbitrary re-scaling that is applied inconsistently. > > > A cesium atom on the sun has a different rate of transitions. > > Now you're changing the subject again. We're not talking about gravitational effects, we're talking about the rest frame of the sun in the far field. The rest frame of the sun, you say. What was the matter with the rest frame of a star in a galaxy seventeen trillion light years away? You seem a little partial to this one frame of reference because it was the frame of reference of your imaginary ether. > > But with regard to your interferometer, it does not do what you think > > it does. > > I think it works the same way the man who invented and built it thought it works, and the same way people who have spent their lives designing and building and operating them think they work. It's a relatively simple principle of operation. What is the basis of your claim that it doesn't work the way everyone (but you) thinks it works? Have you studied it with the same care that you studied the Michelson experimental apparatus (when you thought the light source was moving relative to the apparatus)? I don't think it does work the way you claim. In fact, I know it doesn't. Gravitational effects are not figured into the equations, so until that happens, you do not have a complete description. You were the one who described the Michelson-Morley apparatus to me. Before that I was using two frames of reference just because scientists were. All you really have is one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecf8adfa-6202-47aa-b368-a60eca6c843b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460380 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 5:02:36 AM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:06:28 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, I showed you how to work the problem. You have one set of > > Galilean transformation equations for the time of the earth and > > another set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of > > the sun. > > Simply re-scaling the time coordinate doesn't accurately conform to the observed phenomena, as explained in detail in the previous messages. Relativistic effects have nothing to do with changing the numerical units of the time coordinate. You saw this yourself when you tried to create coordinates in terms of which light propagates at c in both directions, remember? You succeeded in finding such coordinates, and even got the right speed composition formula, but only by a transformation that gives too much and non-isotropic length contraction. Now you contradict yourself (again) by reverting back to the Galilean transformation and an arbitrary re-scaling that is applied inconsistently. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. > > A cesium atom on the sun has a different rate of transitions. > > Now you're changing the subject again. We're not talking about gravitational effects, we're talking about the rest frame of the sun in the far field. Why? You want to remember where the non-existent ether was? > > But with regard to your interferometer, it does not do what you think > > it does. > > I think it works the same way the man who invented and built it thought it works, and the same way people who have spent their lives designing and building and operating them think they work. It's a relatively simple principle of operation. What is the basis of your claim that it doesn't work the way everyone (but you) thinks it works? Have you studied it with the same care that you studied the Michelson experimental apparatus (when you thought the light source was moving relative to the apparatus)? I never studied it at all. All scientists said the same thing, It proved that light had a speed of c in two different frames of reference. Little did I know that one of the frames of reference was imaginary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 19:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ce15284-80c2-41d8-a4ad-114f4fbb0db5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460469 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 5:02:36 AM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > What was the matter with the rest frame of a star in a > galaxy seventeen trillion light years away? Seventeen trillion? That's far greater than the size of the visible universe. But if you wanted to asked a slightly less ridiculous question, such as about a star many light years away, there is nothing wrong with the rest frame of such a star. For purposes of determining a lower bound on the earth's speed relative to the putative absolutely stationary ether, we need only measure the variation of the earth's motion relative to any star or galaxy (using the variations in the received frequency of light). We will get our best lower bound if we select a star in the ecliptic plane, for obvious reasons. This will give the variation in motion equal to the earth's orbital speed. > I don't think it does work the way you claim. In fact, I know it > doesn't. Gravitational effects are not figured into the equations... Sure they are. That's what general relativity is for. Analyzing the behavior of an interferometer on earth during the course of such an experiments shows that the results are virtually indistinguishable from what would be predicted using special relativity, because the effect of gravity happen to be negligible in this situation. > You were the one who described the Michelson-Morley apparatus to me. Do you mean that you have been posting messages about relativity for decades, and yet have never become acquainted with the Michelson-Morley experiment until I just described it to you?? How can that be? > Before that I was using two > frames of reference just because > scientists were. > All you really have > is one. That is beautiful. You should take up poetry. But from a literal standpoint, I don't understand what you men. Could you clarify? > The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. That's true (which is one reason the Galilean transformation is not the relationship between inertial coordinates), but now you're arguing against yourself, because you claimed that you derived Lorentz's 1892 transformation from the Galilean transformation, and that definitely does have length contraction, along with relativity of simultaneity. > > We're not talking about gravitational effects, we're talking about > > the rest frame of the sun in the far field. > Why? Because we aren't interested in the effect of the gravitational time dilation near the sun's surface, we are just noting that the earth's speed in each direction varies by a certain amount during the year, in terms of *any* inertial frame, and this places a lower bound on its speed relative to *any* putative stationary ether frame. > I never studied it at all. Why not? Just not interested? > All scientists said the same thing, it proved that light had a speed > of c in two different frames of reference. Well, combined with other experiments, yes. > Little did I know that one of the frames of reference was imaginary. Inertial frames are not imaginary, and there aren't just one or two of them, there are infinitely many, and light propagates at the speed c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, for the reason explained in the previous messages. This is fatal to Galilean relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 23:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91f15887-6f61-4326-a9c0-6dcfb12de2ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460483 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:31:09 PM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 5:02:36 AM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > > What was the matter with the rest frame of a star in a > > galaxy seventeen trillion light years away? > > Seventeen trillion? That's far greater than the size of the visible universe. But if you wanted to asked a slightly less ridiculous question, such as about a star many light years away, there is nothing wrong with the rest frame of such a star. For purposes of determining a lower bound on the earth's speed relative to the putative absolutely stationary ether, we need only measure the variation of the earth's motion relative to any star or galaxy (using the variations in the received frequency of light). We will get our best lower bound if we select a star in the ecliptic plane, for obvious reasons. This will give the variation in motion equal to the earth's orbital speed. Well, the further away a galaxy is, supposedly the faster it is moving away from our galaxy. I wanted to get one sufficiently far away so that scientists could not say it had the same frame of reference as the mythical ether. > > I don't think it does work the way you claim. In fact, I know it > > doesn't. Gravitational effects are not figured into the equations... > > Sure they are. That's what general relativity is for. Analyzing the behavior of an interferometer on earth during the course of such an experiments shows that the results are virtually indistinguishable from what would be predicted using special relativity, because the effect of gravity happen to be negligible in this situation. The only thing we were talking about was the Galilean transformation equations, which you said were wrong and had to be replaced by the Lorentz equations and a length contraction. The Galilean transformation equations can be used to describe gravitation. Newton used them for this purpose, but by themselves, the equations say nothing about gravitation. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations and Special Relativity were a description of relativity in the absence of gravitation. > > You were the one who described the Michelson-Morley apparatus to me. > > Do you mean that you have been posting messages about relativity for decades, and yet have never become acquainted with the Michelson-Morley experiment until I just described it to you?? How can that be? How can that be? I was just taking the word of scientists about the experiment. > > Before that I was using two > > frames of reference just because > > scientists were. > > All you really have > > is one. > > That is beautiful. You should take up poetry. But from a literal standpoint, I don't understand what you men. Could you clarify? Yes, I can clarify. Michelson and Morley were trying to measure the effect of the ether. They said the experiment showed there was no ether. So why do you still have a frame of reference of the non-existent ether? > > The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. > > That's true (which is one reason the Galilean transformation is not the relationship between inertial coordinates), but now you're arguing against yourself, because you claimed that you derived Lorentz's 1892 transformation from the Galilean transformation, and that definitely does have length contraction, along with relativity of simultaneity. > > > > We're not talking about gravitational effects, we're talking about > > > the rest frame of the sun in the far field. > > Why? > > Because we aren't interested in the effect of the gravitational time dilation near the sun's surface, we are just noting that the earth's speed in each direction varies by a certain amount during the year, in terms of *any* inertial frame, and this places a lower bound on its speed relative to *any* putative stationary ether frame. But Michelson and Morley said there was no ether. Why do you still have a frame of reference for the non-existent ether? > > I never studied it at all. > > Why not? Just not interested? I had other things I had to do. I had a welding business. Secondly, having conversed with some scientists, I was aware that most of what they say is probably false. > > All scientists said the same thing, it proved that light had a speed > > of c in two different frames of reference. > > Well, combined with other experiments, yes. > > > Little did I know that one of the frames of reference was imaginary. > > Inertial frames are not imaginary, and there aren't just one or two of them, there are infinitely many, and light propagates at the speed c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, for the reason explained in the previous messages. This is fatal to Galilean relativity. In Galilean relativity, if the interferometer is not moving relative to ether, then you would not have a frame of reference that represents the non-existent ether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddf45771-45ca-4e85-b61e-cffc0cd7f3e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460490 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:47:33 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > Well, the further away a galaxy is, supposedly the faster it is moving > away from our galaxy. I wanted to get one sufficiently far away so > that scientists could not say it had the same frame of reference as > the mythical ether. You're still not grasping the reasoning. Again, the challenge faced by Michelson, et al, was that they did not know the reference frame of the putative ether... that's what they were trying to find out! It was presumed that the ether was at rest in *some* inertial frame, but no one knew which one. They devised an apparatus that (they believed) would show a fringe shift proportional to the speed of the earth relative to the putative ether frame, but how much fringe shift should we expect to find? How precise does our apparatus need to be in order to detect the earth's motion through the ether? Well, that depends on how fast the earth is moving in the ether's frame, but we don't know what that speed is. You see, at any given time the earth is more or less at rest in it's co-moving inertial frame, so if the earth happens to be at rest (or nearly at rest) in the ether's rest frame, the apparatus wouldn't detect any motion. But wait. The earth isn't at rest in an inertial frame throughout the course of the year, because it is actually moving in a circle at roughly constant speed, so six months apart the earth's speed actually changes (relative to ANY inertial frame) by twice it's orbital speed v. Therefore, regardless of what inertial frame is the ether's rest frame, it follows that at some time during the year the earth *must* be moving with *at least* the speed v relative to the ether. So, to be sure of being able to detect the earth's motion (at some time of the year), Michelson needed his apparatus to be able to detect a fringe shift corresponding to the speed v through the ether. > The only thing we were talking about was the Galilean transformation equations, which you said were wrong and had to be replaced by the Lorentz equations and a length contraction. Not quite... as the relationship between inertial coordinate systems (in which the isotropic laws of physics hold good) the Galilean transformation needs to be replaced by the Lorentz transformation. You shouldn't say "and a length contraction", because that's like ordering the "soup du jour" of the day. > The Galilean transformation equations can be used to describe > gravitation. Newton used them for this purpose... Yes, and Newton's description was wrong, partly because local inertial coordinate systems are not related by Galilean transformations, they are related by Lorentz transformations. > Einstein said that the Lorentz equations and Special Relativity > were a description of relativity in the absence of gravitation. Yes, but that's not all. His "aha moment" in the discovery of general relativity was the Equivalence Principle, according to which the Lorentz equations and special relativity apply *locally* at every time and place, *even in the presence of gravitation*. > > Do you mean that you have been posting messages about relativity for decades, and yet have never become acquainted with the Michelson-Morley experiment until I just described it to you?? How can that be? > > How can that be? I was just taking the word of scientists about the experiment. To the contrary, you reject "the word of scientists" about the experiment, because you claim that the results of the experiment (and every other experiment) can be explained by Galilean relativity, even though scientists say those experiments are incompatible with Galilean relativity. Sure, you might accept the word of scientists about the conduct of the experiment while having your own interpretation or analysis, but my point is that, in order for you to know how to explain an experiment with Galilean relativity you surely have to be acquainted with the experiment. How can you claim to be able to explain the experiment if you don't even know what the experiment *is*? > Michelson and Morley were trying to measure the effect of the ether. > They said the experiment showed there was no ether. So why do you > still have a frame of reference of the non-existent ether? We don't. > > > I never studied it at all. > > Why not? Just not interested? > Having conversed with some scientists, I was aware that most of > what they say is probably false. Are you sure they were scientists? It's true that most people you encounter on the internet are idiots, but you can't infer that real scientists are idiots, nor that text books are probably wrong. There's also a self-confirmation bias to be wary of, i.e., if everyone you meet says your ideas are wrong, it's possible that they are all wrong, but that's not the only possible explanation. It's worthwhile to actually give careful consideration to what the text books say, and to the actual experiments, etc. Even in this thread you've confessed to simply ignoring the explanations and answers to your questions, because you are pre-convinced that they are wrong. That's not good. > In Galilean relativity, if the interferometer is not moving relative to ether, then you would not have a frame of reference that represents the non-existent ether. I don't understand that sentence. The two clauses seem to contradict each other. Could you clarify?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf8tui$l1q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460512 |
hallstoncliff wrote: > They devised an apparatus that (they believed) would show a fringe shift > proportional to the speed of the earth relative to the putative ether > frame, Wrong from the beginning. Before that you have the star system along the center of galaxy, and so on, above and bellow. Compared to the big picture, the rotation of earth has to be insignificant. A wind attempting to deviate a needle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0254aac9-5759-4815-8623-bf2c36a740c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460512 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:12:01 AM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:47:33 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, the further away a galaxy is, supposedly the faster it is moving > > away from our galaxy. I wanted to get one sufficiently far away so > > that scientists could not say it had the same frame of reference as > > the mythical ether. > > You're still not grasping the reasoning. Again, the challenge faced by Michelson, et al, was that they did not know the reference frame of the putative ether... that's what they were trying to find out! It was presumed that the ether was at rest in *some* inertial frame, but no one knew which one. They devised an apparatus that (they believed) would show a fringe shift proportional to the speed of the earth relative to the putative ether frame, but how much fringe shift should we expect to find? How precise does our apparatus need to be in order to detect the earth's motion through the ether? Well, that depends on how fast the earth is moving in the ether's frame, but we don't know what that speed is. You see, at any given time the earth is more or less at rest in it's co-moving inertial frame, so if the earth happens to be at rest (or nearly at rest) in the ether's rest frame, the apparatus wouldn't detect any motion. > > But wait. The earth isn't at rest in an inertial frame throughout the course of the year, because it is actually moving in a circle at roughly constant speed, so six months apart the earth's speed actually changes (relative to ANY inertial frame) by twice it's orbital speed v. Therefore, regardless of what inertial frame is the ether's rest frame, it follows that at some time during the year the earth *must* be moving with *at least* the speed v relative to the ether. So, to be sure of being able to detect the earth's motion (at some time of the year), Michelson needed his apparatus to be able to detect a fringe shift corresponding to the speed v through the ether. > > > The only thing we were talking about was the Galilean transformation equations, which you said were wrong and had to be replaced by the Lorentz equations and a length contraction. > > Not quite... as the relationship between inertial coordinate systems (in which the isotropic laws of physics hold good) the Galilean transformation needs to be replaced by the Lorentz transformation. You shouldn't say "and a length contraction", because that's like ordering the "soup du jour" of the day. > > > The Galilean transformation equations can be used to describe > > gravitation. Newton used them for this purpose... > > Yes, and Newton's description was wrong, partly because local inertial coordinate systems are not related by Galilean transformations, they are related by Lorentz transformations. > > > Einstein said that the Lorentz equations and Special Relativity > > were a description of relativity in the absence of gravitation. > > Yes, but that's not all. His "aha moment" in the discovery of general relativity was the Equivalence Principle, according to which the Lorentz equations and special relativity apply *locally* at every time and place, *even in the presence of gravitation*. The Equivalence Principle was discovered by Galileo when he dropped two weights of different sizes from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, and they hit the ground at the same time. > > > > Do you mean that you have been posting messages about relativity for decades, and yet have never become acquainted with the Michelson-Morley experiment until I just described it to you?? How can that be? > > > > How can that be? I was just taking the word of scientists about the experiment. > > To the contrary, you reject "the word of scientists" about the experiment, because you claim that the results of the experiment (and every other experiment) can be explained by Galilean relativity, even though scientists say those experiments are incompatible with Galilean relativity. Sure, you might accept the word of scientists about the conduct of the experiment while having your own interpretation or analysis, but my point is that, in order for you to know how to explain an experiment with Galilean relativity you surely have to be acquainted with the experiment. How can you claim to be able to explain the experiment if you don't even know what the experiment *is*? Well, I just read descriptions of the experiment by scientists and assumed the light being measured came from the sun, in which case, you would need a frame of reference representing the sun. Then you showed how stupid I was by saying that the source of light was on the interferometer itself, and that takes the sun clear out of the problem. You have a frame of reference representing the non-existent ether, so that was the end of that. Your equations do not mean anything. > > Michelson and Morley were trying to measure the effect of the ether. > > They said the experiment showed there was no ether. So why do you > > still have a frame of reference of the non-existent ether? > > We don't. > > > > > I never studied it at all. > > > Why not? Just not interested? > > Having conversed with some scientists, I was aware that most of > > what they say is probably false. > > Are you sure they were scientists? It's true that most people you encounter on the internet are idiots, but you can't infer that real scientists are idiots, nor that text books are probably wrong. There's also a self-confirmation bias to be wary of, i.e., if everyone you meet says your ideas are wrong, it's possible that they are all wrong, but that's not the only possible explanation. It's worthwhile to actually give careful consideration to what the text books say, and to the actual experiments, etc. Even in this thread you've confessed to simply ignoring the explanations and answers to your questions, because you are pre-convinced that they are wrong. That's not good. My experience with scientists is not good. I had a good job in a sawmill. Then scientists were instrumental in shutting down the lumber industry in the northwestern United States. After that, I was not as impressed by scientists as I had been. I just relate the mathematics to reality. If you have two frames of reference, then they need to represent two different things. One of the frames of reference represents the interferometer. I thought the other represented the frame of reference of the sun because light comes from the sun, and I was assuming from the frames of reference that the light being measured by the interferometer came from the sun. I came to this conclusion because of the mathematics. Then you corrected me. The other frame of reference represents the non-existent ether. > > > In Galilean relativity, if the interferometer is not moving relative to ether, then you would not have a frame of reference that represents the non-existent ether. > > I don't understand that sentence. The two clauses seem to contradict each other. Could you clarify? Yes, I could, but I probably won't because you already see your error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38288334-7a35-49fe-910f-7dbfa409ebf2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460516 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 9:12:43 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > Well, see, the problem with the reasoning is that there is no ether, > so there is no speed v through the ether. That's not a problem with the reasoning, that's the conclusion OF the reasoning. > All you have is one frame of reference, the frame of reference of > the interferometer. Nope, there are infinitely many systems of inertial coordinates, in all states of motion. > You said earlier that you wanted the other frame of reference to > be the frame of reference of the sun... The sun happens to be more nearly inertial (over the course of a year) than the earth, and the variations of the earth's velocity are very simple when expressed in that frame, because the average is about zero. But as already explained, we can use any inertial coordinate system, it doesn't have to be the frame of the sun, that's just the easiest to use. > You said gravitation had nothing to do with the experiment. Right. > If you want the frame of reference of a star, why not be fair to all > stars and choose one in a galaxy long ago and far away like in the movie? Okay, the answer is the same: the earth's velocity in terms of ANY system of inertial coordinates varies by +-v, where v is the earth's orbital speed around the sun. Understand? > The Equivalence Principle was discovered by Galileo when he dropped > two weights of different sizes from the top of the leaning tower of > Pisa, and they hit the ground at the same time. Yes, that was the original version of the EP, and Einstein elaborated on it, to say that all physical phenomena (including things Galileo never hear of, like Maxwell's electromagnetism) work the same way in gravitational free-fall as they do in gravity-free space (i.e., Lorentz invariance, special relativity), and also that being at rest in gravity is the same as accelerating in gravity-free space. > Well, I just read descriptions of the experiment by scientists > and assumed the light being measured came from the sun... But the descriptions say Michelson's light source was on the apparatus. (Note that subsequent experimenters tried all kinds of variations, such as using light from celestial bodies, and on mountain tops and mine shafts, but the results were the same.) > You have a frame of reference representing the non-existent ether, > so that was the end of that. But this has been explained thoroughly many times now. At this point I honestly don't see what objection you are making to Michelson's reasoning: Hypothesize an ether at rest in some inertial frame, determine the minimum possible speed the earth could have in that putative ether frame, test for the ether wind of that speed, find none, conclude the ether doesn't exist. > Your equations do not mean anything. What equations? Was that just a stream-of-consciousness burst of characters? > My experience with scientists is not good. I had a good job in a > sawmill. Then scientists were instrumental in shutting down the > lumber industry in the northwestern United States. After that, I > was not as impressed by scientists as I had been. Yes, but your dislike for "scientists" has nothing to do with the validity of special and general relativity, which is the subject of our discussion. You're not being asked to take anyone's word for anything, on authority, you're having things explained to you, and with your own mind you can evaluate the validity of what you are being told. For that purpose, your personal hatreds or distrust for "scientists" is not relevant. > If you have two frames of reference, then they need to represent > two different things. No, a frame of reference is really just a system of coordinates, which can be defined for any state of motion, regardless of whether some object is at rest in terms of those coordinates. > One of the frames of reference represents the interferometer. Well, the interferometer is (approximately) at rest in one inertial frame, as if every object (instantaneously). > I thought the other represented the frame of reference of the sun... No, to compute the minimum expected fringe shifts (proportional to the difference in round trip times for the parallel and perpendicular light rays), we analyze the case where the interferometer is moving with speed v in terms of the putative ether's rest frame. > I was assuming from the frames of reference that the light being > measured by the interferometer came from the sun. I came to this > conclusion because of the mathematics. I don't understand those sentences. How would mathematics lead you to the conclusion of assuming that the light came from the sun? What mathematics? > Then you corrected me. The other frame of reference represents > the non-existent ether. Well, the analysis is based on the interferometer is moving with speed v in the rest frame of the putative ether, since the earth must be moving at least that fast in the putative ether frame at least some times of the year. Is there something you don't understand about this? > Yes, I could, but I probably won't because you already see your error. My error? You just admitted that you were in error and I corrected you. (You're welcome.) Now you allude to an error on my part... what error are you referring to?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0d39e19-6f17-47b4-9449-0bfe9acb128b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460537 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 1:35:01 PM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 9:12:43 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, see, the problem with the reasoning is that there is no ether, > > so there is no speed v through the ether. > > That's not a problem with the reasoning, that's the conclusion OF the reasoning. OK, so since that is the conclusion, what is v supposed to mean? > > > All you have is one frame of reference, the frame of reference of > > the interferometer. > > Nope, there are infinitely many systems of inertial coordinates, in all states of motion. Wonderful. Now we are getting somewhere. What does this frame of reference represent? S(x,y.z.t) > > You said earlier that you wanted the other frame of reference to > > be the frame of reference of the sun... > > The sun happens to be more nearly inertial (over the course of a year) than the earth, and the variations of the earth's velocity are very simple when expressed in that frame, because the average is about zero. But as already explained, we can use any inertial coordinate system, it doesn't have to be the frame of the sun, that's just the easiest to use. OK, now you are back to using the frame of reference of the sun. There are an infinite number of other frames of reference, including a star in a galaxy far away. That star is moving away from earth with a high velocity according to scientists. To be fair to stars, you would need to use that frame of reference also. > > You said gravitation had nothing to do with the experiment. > > Right. > > > If you want the frame of reference of a star, why not be fair to all > > stars and choose one in a galaxy long ago and far away like in the movie? > > Okay, the answer is the same: the earth's velocity in terms of ANY system of inertial coordinates varies by +-v, where v is the earth's orbital speed around the sun. Understand? But scientists say that the star in a faraway galaxy is moving away from the earth at a high velocity. > > > The Equivalence Principle was discovered by Galileo when he dropped > > two weights of different sizes from the top of the leaning tower of > > Pisa, and they hit the ground at the same time. > > Yes, that was the original version of the EP, and Einstein elaborated on it, to say that all physical phenomena (including things Galileo never hear of, like Maxwell's electromagnetism) work the same way in gravitational free-fall as they do in gravity-free space (i.e., Lorentz invariance, special relativity), and also that being at rest in gravity is the same as accelerating in gravity-free space. > > > Well, I just read descriptions of the experiment by scientists > > and assumed the light being measured came from the sun... > > But the descriptions say Michelson's light source was on the apparatus. (Note that subsequent experimenters tried all kinds of variations, such as using light from celestial bodies, and on mountain tops and mine shafts, but the results were the same.) I would expect they were. > > You have a frame of reference representing the non-existent ether, > > so that was the end of that. > > But this has been explained thoroughly many times now. At this point I honestly don't see what objection you are making to Michelson's reasoning: Hypothesize an ether at rest in some inertial frame, determine the minimum possible speed the earth could have in that putative ether frame, test for the ether wind of that speed, find none, conclude the ether doesn't exist. OK, Michelson concluded that the ether did not exist. Mathematically, the correct thing to do is to stop using the frame of reference of the ether. Do you know why? The ether does not exist. > > Your equations do not mean anything. > > What equations? Was that just a stream-of-consciousness burst of characters? Yes, I was conscious the entire time I was writing that sentence. > > My experience with scientists is not good. I had a good job in a > > sawmill. Then scientists were instrumental in shutting down the > > lumber industry in the northwestern United States. After that, I > > was not as impressed by scientists as I had been. > > Yes, but your dislike for "scientists" has nothing to do with the validity of special and general relativity, which is the subject of our discussion. You're not being asked to take anyone's word for anything, on authority, you're having things explained to you, and with your own mind you can evaluate the validity of what you are being told. For that purpose, your personal hatreds or distrust for "scientists" is not relevant. I did not say I hated scientists. Love your enemies, do good to those who do evil to you, etc. I just said I do not think scientists are very smart. > > > If you have two frames of reference, then they need to represent > > two different things. > > No, a frame of reference is really just a system of coordinates, which can be defined for any state of motion, regardless of whether some object is at rest in terms of those coordinates. OK, so what if I say here are frames of reference S and S'. They do not represent anything, so I have proven Einstein wrong. > > One of the frames of reference represents the interferometer. > > Well, the interferometer is (approximately) at rest in one inertial frame, as if every object (instantaneously). > > > I thought the other represented the frame of reference of the sun... > > No, to compute the minimum expected fringe shifts (proportional to the difference in round trip times for the parallel and perpendicular light rays), we analyze the case where the interferometer is moving with speed v in terms of the putative ether's rest frame. But the experiment was supposed to have proven the putative ether did not exist, so there is no rest frame of the putative ether. All you have is the rest frame of the interferometer. There is no other rest frame that is relevant to the experiment because the one you were using was proven to represent something that did not exist. So you have the rest frame of the interferometer. What other rest frame do you want to use, and why? > > I was assuming from the frames of reference that the light being > > measured by the interferometer came from the sun. I came to this > > conclusion because of the mathematics. > > I don't understand those sentences. How would mathematics lead you to the conclusion of assuming that the light came from the sun? What mathematics? > > > Then you corrected me. The other frame of reference represents > > the non-existent ether. > > Well, the analysis is based on the interferometer is moving with speed v in the rest frame of the putative ether, since the earth must be moving at least that fast in the putative ether frame at least some times of the year. Is there something you don't understand about this? > > > Yes, I could, but I probably won't because you already see your error. > > My error? You just admitted that you were in error and I corrected you. (You're welcome.) Now you allude to an error on my part... what error are you referring to? S(x,y,z,t) You said that this frame of reference represented the putative ether. The experiment showed that the ether did not exist. So this frame of reference is no longer relevant to the experiment. There is no speed v between the interferometer and the putative ether because the putative ether does not exist. The interferometer may have speed v with regard to something else, but it does not have speed v relative to the putative ether. You say you have a speed v in your equations. What is the interferometer moving with speed v to which it is relative? There must be something that S(x,y,z,t) represents now that the ether is gone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0de1b051-9899-4257-a540-504b5e7ace23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460548 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:44:01 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > OK, so since that is the conclusion, what is v supposed to mean? It is the lowest speed that the earth could have in terms of the putative ether's rest frame, which is numerically equal to the earth's orbital speed around the sun by the iron clad reasoning you've been given six times now, and ignored. Therefore, if we build a device that can detect fringe shifts corresponding to the speed v (or larger), and if there is an ether, our device should detect it. We built the device, and did not see the fringe shifts, so there is no ether. This is simple logic. What is the problem? > What does this frame of reference represent? S(x,y.z.t) If you tell me that symbol represents a frame of reference, then I'd say it represents a frame of reference. > There are an infinite number of other frames of reference, including > a star in a galaxy far away. Well, a star isn't a frame of reference, a star is instantaneously at rest in some inertial frame of reference. > That star is moving away from earth with a high velocity according > to scientists. Well, on cosmological scales, but yes, sufficiently distant galaxies are red-shifted relative to us. > To be fair to stars, you would need to use that frame of reference also. Yes, and I explained to you that it gives the same answer. Did you read the explanation, or did you just ignore it? Again, more slowly, focus on the distant galaxy, and determine the relative speed from spectral analysis of the redshift. Now, if you do this at different times of the year, the amount of redshift of that distant galaxy will vary in a regular and repeatable way, on a yearly cycle. And the amount of change in the redshift corresponds to the annual variation in the relative speed of the earth and that distant galaxy. You will find (hold on to your hat, Robert!) that the annual change in the earth's velocity relative to that distant galaxy is 2v, where v is the earth's orbital speed around the sun! OMG! How can this be? What does that distant galaxy have to do with the Sun!?? Well, think about it. > OK, Michelson concluded that the ether did not exist. Mathematically, the correct thing to do is to stop using the frame of reference of the ether. Do you know why? The ether does not exist. But that's exactly what we did. After the MM experiment people stopped expressing things in terms of the hypothetical reference frame of the ether in Galilean space-time (which no one could ever find), and just adopted the fully relativistic formalism and Lorentz invariance. > OK, so what if I say here are frames of reference S and S'. They do not represent anything, so I have proven Einstein wrong. Could you clarify what you mean? If you say that S and S' signify two frames of reference (or two inertial coordinate systems), what do you mean when you say they don't "represent" anything? Statements like that are what make people think you don't know what an inertial reference frame is. > But the experiment was supposed to have proven the putative ether > did not exist, so there is no rest frame of the putative ether. > All you have is the rest frame of the interferometer. If you know what a reference frame is, you know that there are obviously reference frames in terms of which the earth is moving at the speed v, and yet we do not detect any ether wind of speed v, so we infer that there is no ether at rest in one of those frames. There are also frames in which the earth is moving at speed 3v, but we don't detect any ether wind of speed 3v, so we know there is no ether in any of those frames, and so on. Understand? > What other rest frame do you want to use, and why? We considered all possible reference frames in which the ether might be at rest, and ruled out all of them, by the reasoning and experiment already described (seven times now). > S(x,y,z,t) You said that this frame of reference represented the putative ether. The experiment showed that the ether did not exist. So this frame of reference is no longer relevant to the experiment. Not true, it is one of the frames that the experiment ruled out as the rest frame of the ether. The experiment also ruled out all other rest frames as being the rest frame of the ether. > There is no speed v between the interferometer and the putative ether > because the putative ether does not exist. Right. > The interferometer may have speed v with regard to something else, > but it does not have speed v relative to the putative ether. Right. > You say you have a speed v in your equations. What is the interferometer > moving with speed v to which it is relative? For the 8th time, since the sun is very nearly inertial (on the time scale of a year), the change in velocity (+-v) of the earth relative to the sun's reference frame is the same as the earth's change in velocity relative to ANY inertial frame. This means that if there is an ether at rest in ANY inertial frame, during the course of a year the earth's velocity changes by +-v in that frame, which means that at some time during the year the earth MUST being moving with AT LEAST the speed v in terms of the ether's rest frame. So, if we look for evidence of ether wind of speed v or greater, and don't find any, we know there is no ether in ANY inertial frame of reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 20:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <538e7c3c-0980-407b-9b23-7968d5afb368@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460562 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:44:01 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> > OK, so since that is the conclusion, what is v supposed to mean?
>
> It is the lowest speed that the earth could have in terms of the putative ether's rest frame, which is numerically equal to the earth's orbital speed around the sun by the iron clad reasoning you've been given six times now, and ignored. Therefore, if we build a device that can detect fringe shifts corresponding to the speed v (or larger), and if there is an ether, our device should detect it. We built the device, and did not see the fringe shifts, so there is no ether. This is simple logic. What is the problem?
I don't see a problem. I was not the one who said that the putative ether had a frame of reference.
>
> > What does this frame of reference represent? S(x,y.z.t)
>
> If you tell me that symbol represents a frame of reference, then I'd say it represents a frame of reference.
You were the one with the Lorentz equations. Einstein said that S(x,y,z,t) represented a frame of reference at rest. Why would a frame of reference at rest be the same as the frame of reference of the non-existent ether?
>
> > There are an infinite number of other frames of reference, including
> > a star in a galaxy far away.
>
> Well, a star isn't a frame of reference, a star is instantaneously at rest in some inertial frame of reference.
>
> > That star is moving away from earth with a high velocity according
> > to scientists.
>
> Well, on cosmological scales, but yes, sufficiently distant galaxies are red-shifted relative to us.
>
> > To be fair to stars, you would need to use that frame of reference also.
>
> Yes, and I explained to you that it gives the same answer. Did you read the explanation, or did you just ignore it?
>
> Again, more slowly, focus on the distant galaxy, and determine the relative speed from spectral analysis of the redshift. Now, if you do this at different times of the year, the amount of redshift of that distant galaxy will vary in a regular and repeatable way, on a yearly cycle. And the amount of change in the redshift corresponds to the annual variation in the relative speed of the earth and that distant galaxy. You will find (hold on to your hat, Robert!) that the annual change in the earth's velocity relative to that distant galaxy is 2v, where v is the earth's orbital speed around the sun! OMG! How can this be? What does that distant galaxy have to do with the Sun!?? Well, think about it.
I think it all has to do with wave length and frequency. I do not think that far distant galaxies are moving away from earth the way scientists believe.
> > OK, Michelson concluded that the ether did not exist. Mathematically, the correct thing to do is to stop using the frame of reference of the ether. Do you know why? The ether does not exist.
>
> But that's exactly what we did. After the MM experiment people stopped expressing things in terms of the hypothetical reference frame of the ether in Galilean space-time (which no one could ever find), and just adopted the fully relativistic formalism and Lorentz invariance.
Well, so they made a mistake. People will eventually have to correct that mistake. In the meantime scientists have quite a shell game going.
>
> > OK, so what if I say here are frames of reference S and S'. They do not represent anything, so I have proven Einstein wrong.
>
> Could you clarify what you mean? If you say that S and S' signify two frames of reference (or two inertial coordinate systems), what do you mean when you say they don't "represent" anything? Statements like that are what make people think you don't know what an inertial reference frame is.
S(x,y,z,t) is an inertial frame of reference. You say that in the Lorentz equations that inertial frame of reference S represents non-existent ether.
> > But the experiment was supposed to have proven the putative ether
> > did not exist, so there is no rest frame of the putative ether.
> > All you have is the rest frame of the interferometer.
>
> If you know what a reference frame is, you know that there are obviously reference frames in terms of which the earth is moving at the speed v, and yet we do not detect any ether wind of speed v, so we infer that there is no ether at rest in one of those frames. There are also frames in which the earth is moving at speed 3v, but we don't detect any ether wind of speed 3v, so we know there is no ether in any of those frames, and so on. Understand?
Yes, so your equation means nothing in terms of relativity.
> > What other rest frame do you want to use, and why?
>
> We considered all possible reference frames in which the ether might be at rest, and ruled out all of them, by the reasoning and experiment already described (seven times now).
OK, but the correct equations to represent relativity would be
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
> > S(x,y,z,t) You said that this frame of reference represented the putative ether. The experiment showed that the ether did not exist. So this frame of reference is no longer relevant to the experiment.
>
> Not true, it is one of the frames that the experiment ruled out as the rest frame of the ether. The experiment also ruled out all other rest frames as being the rest frame of the ether.
Well, then any frame of reference where there is no ether could be represented by S(x,y,z,t), where
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
> > There is no speed v between the interferometer and the putative ether
> > because the putative ether does not exist.
>
> Right.
>
> > The interferometer may have speed v with regard to something else,
> > but it does not have speed v relative to the putative ether.
>
> Right.
>
> > You say you have a speed v in your equations. What is the interferometer
> > moving with speed v to which it is relative?
>
> For the 8th time, since the sun is very nearly inertial (on the time scale of a year), the change in velocity (+-v) of the earth relative to the sun's reference frame is the same as the earth's change in velocity relative to ANY inertial frame. This means that if there is an ether at rest in ANY inertial frame, during the course of a year the earth's velocity changes by +-v in that frame, which means that at some time during the year the earth MUST being moving with AT LEAST the speed v in terms of the ether's rest frame. So, if we look for evidence of ether wind of speed v or greater, and don't find any, we know there is no ether in ANY inertial frame of reference.
OK, so why don't you use the correct equations? If you are substituting the frame of reference of the sun because you do not have any putative ether, then the correct equations would be
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
where (x,y,z,t) are the coordinates in S, the frame of reference of the sun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hallstoncliff@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 22:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e71f63a4-a2e8-4c6c-a1e4-c8e2582553b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460571 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:16:31 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > I don't see a problem. So we're in agreement that your doubts were unfounded and misguided. Great. > Einstein said that S(x,y,z,t) represented a frame of reference at rest. Why would a frame of reference at rest be the same as the frame of reference of the non-existent ether? No, you misread. In relativity, both Galilean and special relativity, all inertial coordinate systems are symmetrical, so when (for example) Einstein discussed a "stationary" and a "moving" frame he was careful to explain that these are just names for convenience, and we can just as well call the second frame "stationary" and the first one "moving", or call both of them "moving". The first postulate (borrowed from Galilean relativity) is that all inertial coordinate systems are equivalent for the formulation of physical laws. This is absolutely fundamental to both Galilean and special relativity. > I think it all has to do with wave length and frequency. I do not think that far distant galaxies are moving away from earth the way scientists believe. But that is completely irrelevant, because what matters is the annual change in the frequency, correlated with the orbital motion of the earth. Do you deny that the annual frequency change corresponds precisely to the changing velocity of the earth in its orbit? > Well, so they made a mistake. People will eventually have to correct that mistake. In the meantime scientists have quite a shell game going. Wait, you've gone completely nuts. You said people should have stopped talking about the ether when they discovered it doesn't exist. I said, well, that's exactly what they did, and without an ether the only viable theory of relativity is Lorentz invariant, not Galilean invariant. Now you say it was a mistake to do this? You've just spent weeks learning why Galilean relativity fails to account for the phenomena, and special relativity does, e.g., how Michelson's experiment worked, etc. What has happened to all your new-found knowledge? > S(x,y,z,t) is an inertial frame of reference. You say that in the > Lorentz equations that inertial frame of reference S represents non- > existent ether. I said no such thing. I don't think it helps the discussion for you to lie in that manner. > Yes, so your equation means nothing in terms of relativity. What equation? And if/when you identify the equation you're talking about, what do you mean when you say it "means nothing in terms of relativity"? > OK... Great, so we're in agreement that all your misconceptions have now been corrected. > The correct equations to represent relativity would be [Galilean] No, we've been over this. Inertial coordinate systems - in which the laws of physics hold good - are not related by Galilean transformations, they are related by Lorentz transformations, for the reasons explained many times now. > Well, then any frame of reference where there is no ether could be represented by S(x,y,z,t), where x'=x-vt, t'=t... That sentence carries no rational content. > OK, so why don't you use the correct equations? Equations for what? Are talking about the equations that Michelson used to analyze his experimental results? That analysis doesn't involve any coordinate transformation (neither Galilean nor Lorentzian), so what are you talking about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 00:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf6b4ea3-c1d7-4f2b-a3f6-1f0bd568e6a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460574 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:43:03 PM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:16:31 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: > > I don't see a problem. > > So we're in agreement that your doubts were unfounded and misguided. Great. > > > Einstein said that S(x,y,z,t) represented a frame of reference at rest. Why would a frame of reference at rest be the same as the frame of reference of the non-existent ether? > > No, you misread. In relativity, both Galilean and special relativity, all inertial coordinate systems are symmetrical, so when (for example) Einstein discussed a "stationary" and a "moving" frame he was careful to explain that these are just names for convenience, and we can just as well call the second frame "stationary" and the first one "moving", or call both of them "moving". The first postulate (borrowed from Galilean relativity) is that all inertial coordinate systems are equivalent for the formulation of physical laws. This is absolutely fundamental to both Galilean and special relativity. Well, that is quite a postulate, all right. The problem I see is when you talk about relativity of time. For instance, if you drop a ball from the top of a moving train car, according to Einstein you have two different lengths of time for it to reach the floor. So what about gravitation? Is gravitation a law of physics? > > > I think it all has to do with wave length and frequency. I do not think that far distant galaxies are moving away from earth the way scientists believe. > > But that is completely irrelevant, because what matters is the annual change in the frequency, correlated with the orbital motion of the earth. Do you deny that the annual frequency change corresponds precisely to the changing velocity of the earth in its orbit? I have no idea. I do know that scientists lie all the time. Last summer a million acres of trees burned in northwestern Montana where I was from. Scientists say it was because of global warming. People who live there knew it was going to happen and have been saying it would happen ever since the lumber industry was shut down. > > > Well, so they made a mistake. People will eventually have to correct that mistake. In the meantime scientists have quite a shell game going. > > Wait, you've gone completely nuts. You said people should have stopped talking about the ether when they discovered it doesn't exist. I said, well, that's exactly what they did, and without an ether the only viable theory of relativity is Lorentz invariant, not Galilean invariant. Now you say it was a mistake to do this? You've just spent weeks learning why Galilean relativity fails to account for the phenomena, and special relativity does, e.g., how Michelson's experiment worked, etc. What has happened to all your new-found knowledge? I told you from the beginning. If there is a clock that shows a different time, I use another set of Galilean transformation equations. > > > S(x,y,z,t) is an inertial frame of reference. You say that in the > > Lorentz equations that inertial frame of reference S represents non- > > existent ether. > > I said no such thing. I don't think it helps the discussion for you to lie in that manner. > > > Yes, so your equation means nothing in terms of relativity. > > What equation? And if/when you identify the equation you're talking about, what do you mean when you say it "means nothing in terms of relativity"? > > > OK... > > Great, so we're in agreement that all your misconceptions have now been corrected. > > > The correct equations to represent relativity would be [Galilean] > > No, we've been over this. Inertial coordinate systems - in which the laws of physics hold good - are not related by Galilean transformations, they are related by Lorentz transformations, for the reasons explained many times now. Well, no. The Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations to represent relativity. > > Well, then any frame of reference where there is no ether could be represented by S(x,y,z,t), where x'=x-vt, t'=t... > > That sentence carries no rational content. > > OK, so why don't you use the correct equations? > > Equations for what? Are talking about the equations that Michelson used to analyze his experimental results? That analysis doesn't involve any coordinate transformation (neither Galilean nor Lorentzian), so what are you talking about? Einstein plainly stated that he was throwing away the Galilean transformation equations and replacing them with the Lorentz equations, as you well know. The Lorentz equations have a length contraction because two different rates of time are used in the same set of equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfb8eq$eo4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460578 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:43:03 PM UTC-7, hallst...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:16:31 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote: >>> I don't see a problem. >> >> So we're in agreement that your doubts were unfounded and misguided. Great. >> >>> Einstein said that S(x,y,z,t) represented a frame of reference at rest. >>> Why would a frame of reference at rest be the same as the frame of >>> reference of the non-existent ether? >> >> No, you misread. In relativity, both Galilean and special relativity, >> all inertial coordinate systems are symmetrical, so when (for example) >> Einstein discussed a "stationary" and a "moving" frame he was careful to >> explain that these are just names for convenience, and we can just as >> well call the second frame "stationary" and the first one "moving", or >> call both of them "moving". The first postulate (borrowed from Galilean >> relativity) is that all inertial coordinate systems are equivalent for >> the formulation of physical laws. This is absolutely fundamental to >> both Galilean and special relativity. > > Well, that is quite a postulate, all right. The problem I see is when > you talk about relativity of time. For instance, if you drop a ball from > the top of a moving train car, according to Einstein you have two > different lengths of time for it to reach the floor. So what about > gravitation? Is gravitation a law of physics? Yes but the time for it to fall is not a law of physics. By the way, Newtonian gravity is NOT a law of physics, precisely because it doesn’t remain invariant under Lorentz transformations. You didn’t know that? >> >>> I think it all has to do with wave length and frequency. I do not >>> think that far distant galaxies are moving away from earth the way scientists believe. >> >> But that is completely irrelevant, because what matters is the annual >> change in the frequency, correlated with the orbital motion of the >> earth. Do you deny that the annual frequency change corresponds >> precisely to the changing velocity of the earth in its orbit? > > I have no idea. I do know that scientists lie all the time. Last summer > a million acres of trees burned in northwestern Montana where I was from. > Scientists say it was because of global warming. People who live there > knew it was going to happen and have been saying it would happen ever > since the lumber industry was shut down. >> >>> Well, so they made a mistake. People will eventually have to correct >>> that mistake. In the meantime scientists have quite a shell game going. >> >> Wait, you've gone completely nuts. You said people should have stopped >> talking about the ether when they discovered it doesn't exist. I said, >> well, that's exactly what they did, and without an ether the only viable >> theory of relativity is Lorentz invariant, not Galilean invariant. Now >> you say it was a mistake to do this? You've just spent weeks learning >> why Galilean relativity fails to account for the phenomena, and special >> relativity does, e.g., how Michelson's experiment worked, etc. What has >> happened to all your new-found knowledge? > > I told you from the beginning. If there is a clock that shows a > different time, I use another set of Galilean transformation equations. >> >>> S(x,y,z,t) is an inertial frame of reference. You say that in the >>> Lorentz equations that inertial frame of reference S represents non- >>> existent ether. >> >> I said no such thing. I don't think it helps the discussion for you to >> lie in that manner. >> >>> Yes, so your equation means nothing in terms of relativity. >> >> What equation? And if/when you identify the equation you're talking >> about, what do you mean when you say it "means nothing in terms of relativity"? >> >>> OK... >> >> Great, so we're in agreement that all your misconceptions have now been corrected. >> >>> The correct equations to represent relativity would be [Galilean] >> >> No, we've been over this. Inertial coordinate systems - in which the >> laws of physics hold good - are not related by Galilean transformations, >> they are related by Lorentz transformations, for the reasons explained many times now. > > Well, no. The Galilean transformation equations are the correct > equations to represent relativity. > >>> Well, then any frame of reference where there is no ether could be >>> represented by S(x,y,z,t), where x'=x-vt, t'=t... >> >> That sentence carries no rational content. > >>> OK, so why don't you use the correct equations? >> >> Equations for what? Are talking about the equations that Michelson used >> to analyze his experimental results? That analysis doesn't involve any >> coordinate transformation (neither Galilean nor Lorentzian), so what are >> you talking about? > > Einstein plainly stated that he was throwing away the Galilean > transformation equations and replacing them with the Lorentz equations, > as you well know. The Lorentz equations have a length contraction > because two different rates of time are used in the same set of equations. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 50 [1] 2 3 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web