Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #466103 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-29 05:33 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-30 06:34 -0700 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 27 participants
Thread has 1050 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity | Browse in flat view
Thread has 1050 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-07-29 23:12 +1000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-29 17:09 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-07-30 13:17 +1000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-30 13:32 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 05:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 13:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-30 07:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 12:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 21:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 15:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 22:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 16:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 00:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 21:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 12:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 19:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 01:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 02:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 21:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 09:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 16:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 00:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 17:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 21:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 13:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-30 18:29 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-07-31 15:09 +1000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-31 22:34 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 04:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-29 22:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 22:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 05:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 04:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 05:06 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 21:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-31 05:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 10:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-31 11:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 01:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 19:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 03:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 21:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 09:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 17:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 09:28 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 21:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 09:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 11:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 20:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 13:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 16:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 17:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-03 00:59 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 03:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 12:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 23:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 16:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 04:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-03 04:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-03 10:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 23:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 16:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-03 19:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-03 21:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 21:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-04 05:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-04 14:29 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-04 05:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 06:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-04 07:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 09:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-04 10:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-04 11:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 12:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-04 13:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 14:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-04 15:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 22:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 04:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-05 04:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> - 2018-08-05 12:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 06:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 06:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-06 00:28 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 15:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 15:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 19:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-06 08:56 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 05:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-07 11:11 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-07 04:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 06:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 05:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-07 19:00 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 11:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 15:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 15:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 20:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 20:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-05 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 22:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 05:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 05:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 07:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 09:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 09:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 10:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 11:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 11:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 18:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 12:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 12:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 14:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 14:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 14:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 21:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 07:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 11:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-06 11:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 14:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 08:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 15:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 08:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 16:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-06 18:55 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 17:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 05:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 23:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 14:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 08:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 16:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 12:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 19:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 21:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 14:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 21:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 15:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 15:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-06 21:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-07 04:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 06:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 09:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-07 10:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 21:25 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 23:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 14:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 08:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 10:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 12:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 20:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-08 14:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-09 03:15 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-08 19:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 20:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-09 04:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 08:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-09 05:11 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 20:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-09 05:14 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 20:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-09 04:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-09 06:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 08:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 16:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 10:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 13:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 21:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 14:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 22:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 16:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-10 17:19 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-10 09:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-10 15:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 10:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 09:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 16:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 10:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 14:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-10 14:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-10 16:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 16:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 22:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 23:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 16:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-11 01:58 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 19:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 14:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-11 14:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 22:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-11 15:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-11 15:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-11 16:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-12 00:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-12 03:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-12 04:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-12 11:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 07:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 22:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-12 00:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 12:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-12 21:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-13 03:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 04:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-13 04:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 05:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 09:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-13 11:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 11:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-13 13:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 18:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 19:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-12 19:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 00:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 08:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 15:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 12:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 20:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-15 07:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-15 02:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 06:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 14:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-15 07:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 14:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 08:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 09:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 11:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 12:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 18:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 12:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-15 14:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 16:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-15 17:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-15 19:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 22:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-16 04:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-16 12:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-16 20:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 03:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 04:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 05:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-17 06:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 18:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-17 21:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 18:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-17 21:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-17 21:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 04:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-18 05:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 06:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 07:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-18 08:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 09:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 12:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-18 15:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 22:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 06:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 07:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 23:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 00:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 02:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 22:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 09:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 17:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-16 11:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 12:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 16:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 23:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 19:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 11:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 17:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 12:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 19:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 13:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 13:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-19 06:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Icano Bologna <ob@woccgn.cc> - 2018-08-19 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-19 09:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Icano Bologna <ob@woccgn.cc> - 2018-08-19 16:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 07:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 07:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-19 07:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Icano Bologna <ob@woccgn.cc> - 2018-08-19 15:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 22:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 13:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-19 08:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-19 02:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 04:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-19 18:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-19 11:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-19 23:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 22:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-20 16:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 10:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-20 19:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 13:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 11:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 22:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-20 17:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 11:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-20 21:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 17:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 17:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 21:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 22:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 08:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 17:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 12:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 20:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 23:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-18 12:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 05:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 13:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 07:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 22:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 15:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 16:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 16:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 21:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 23:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 03:34 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 19:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 23:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-20 08:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 15:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 22:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 18:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 22:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 22:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-19 15:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 15:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 08:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 09:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 11:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-20 19:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 21:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 08:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 14:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 21:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 23:47 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 02:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 23:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 06:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 20:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 15:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 02:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 19:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-22 14:45 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 07:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 10:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 14:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 14:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 20:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 23:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 21:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 21:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 08:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 09:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 14:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-22 14:40 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 07:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 08:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-23 13:54 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-24 00:34 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 12:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-27 14:57 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 21:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 02:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 23:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 07:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 20:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 21:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 10:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 20:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 15:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 05:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 07:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 10:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 20:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 20:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 21:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 22:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 10:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 10:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 11:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-22 17:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 10:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-22 21:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 19:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 23:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 05:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 07:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 23:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-22 14:47 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 05:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 09:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 17:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 12:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 20:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 21:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 12:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 11:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 17:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 18:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 21:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 21:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 00:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 08:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 16:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 21:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 14:28 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-16 08:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 09:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 18:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-16 11:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 12:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-17 04:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-15 19:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 22:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-15 16:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 11:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-15 13:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 08:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 15:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 12:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 20:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-14 00:17 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 18:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 02:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 00:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-14 12:10 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 08:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-15 01:51 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 17:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-15 11:53 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 06:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-15 16:02 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 08:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-16 00:13 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 16:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-16 08:08 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-17 00:46 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 16:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-15 16:41 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-15 07:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-14 12:12 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 18:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 02:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 00:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-09 12:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 13:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-09 17:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-09 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-09 23:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-10 04:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 22:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-10 18:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-10 12:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 14:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-10 01:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-10 08:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 10:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 14:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-09 03:10 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 18:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:21 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:18 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 12:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 18:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 02:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-09 03:13 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 18:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 15:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 09:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 17:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 21:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 23:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-08 15:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-08 18:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-08 21:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 18:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-08 21:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-09 03:09 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 18:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-08 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-07 09:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 15:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 02:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 19:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 03:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 20:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-06 00:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 15:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 09:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 17:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 10:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 19:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 12:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 20:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 21:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-05 01:06 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-04 16:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 22:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 21:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 21:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 14:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 17:25 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 23:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 16:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 16:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 22:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 20:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 16:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 00:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 17:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 22:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 03:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 04:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 16:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 10:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 12:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 22:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 16:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 03:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 10:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 18:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 11:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 20:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 22:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 16:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 17:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 16:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 17:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 10:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 17:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 11:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 03:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 07:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 10:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 17:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 22:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-03 22:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 12:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-04 07:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 15:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-04 09:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 18:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-05 13:14 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-05 04:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-05 13:51 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-05 05:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 23:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 23:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-04 03:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 09:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 17:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 23:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 17:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 12:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 22:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 16:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 21:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 12:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-01 22:08 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 13:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-01 22:26 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 13:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-01 22:37 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 21:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 03:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 08:18 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 17:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 22:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 03:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 04:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-03 00:54 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 03:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-01 21:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-01 04:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-01 14:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 16:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-01 18:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 22:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-02 05:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-02 05:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-02 06:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-02 11:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 15:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-03 00:56 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 03:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-31 22:06 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 22:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 05:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-30 12:24 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 04:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 04:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-07-30 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 13:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-07-31 12:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 18:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 07:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 14:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 05:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 13:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 13:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 00:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 18:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 01:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 19:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 03:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 22:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 12:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-27 05:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 06:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-27 09:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-27 10:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 12:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-27 19:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 14:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 22:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-27 20:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 19:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 12:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 19:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 16:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 02:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-27 14:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-27 20:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 02:28 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-27 20:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Oberto Badelli <eual@dillbwoe.ih> - 2018-08-27 15:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 06:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 15:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 14:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 11:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 06:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 14:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 15:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Oberto Badelli <eual@dillbwoe.ih> - 2018-08-27 15:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 15:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Oberto Badelli <eual@dillbwoe.ih> - 2018-08-27 16:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 11:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 19:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 19:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-27 19:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 16:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 03:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-27 20:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 21:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 06:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 00:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 12:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 08:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 12:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 21:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 17:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 21:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 11:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 05:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 08:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 16:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 10:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 12:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 12:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 14:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 15:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 11:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 19:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 13:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 22:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 22:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:10 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 15:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 17:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 18:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 19:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 20:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 21:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 23:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 00:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 04:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-30 15:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-30 14:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 08:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 16:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 10:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 11:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativityzwwwz mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 05:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 10:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 11:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 11:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 19:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 12:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 17:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 06:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 11:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 14:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 22:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-27 20:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 02:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 21:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 05:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-27 23:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 11:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-28 05:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-28 06:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-28 10:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 16:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-27 23:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 23:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 16:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 12:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 12:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-28 13:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-28 17:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 18:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-28 18:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 18:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-28 19:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 23:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 03:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 05:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 06:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 10:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 10:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 11:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 11:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 06:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 09:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 17:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 17:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-30 11:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 12:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 21:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 01:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 18:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 01:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 19:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-30 11:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 12:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 21:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 01:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 18:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 01:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 19:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 11:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-30 21:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 09:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-30 16:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 09:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 16:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 17:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 19:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 20:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-31 04:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-30 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 23:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-29 17:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-29 15:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 10:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 11:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 19:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 22:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 07:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 07:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-30 15:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 08:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 10:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 17:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 12:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 21:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-29 21:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-29 17:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 12:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-30 06:34 -0700
Page 17 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 50 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 15:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22136ee2-787e-4c1e-b007-14c1c47e4f8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468267 |
On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 1:06:49 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 8:55:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Time dilation is an experimental fact; therefore the GT is refuted. > > Those that cling to the GT like a redneck to his pickup truck are the > > ones in denial of reality. Those who don't bother to try to understand > > the argument but blabber about the GT anyway are lazy bums. Those > > that can't understand the argument are stupid, and those who do understand > > the argument but still cling to the GT are liars and hypocrites. > > > > > I am sure you would be happier talking to the nice scientists. > > > > “I never learned from a man that agreed with me.” – Robert A. Heinlein > > Well, if you say you insist on participating in this discussion about the > Galilean transformation equations, Dead wrong again, ignoramus, I insist on talking about REALITY, about FACTS. Such things don't exist in your fantasy world. > we should probably provide a means for you to participate on your level. > Here are some equations for you to delete. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t Do you see those two little horizontal bars between t' and t? That means that broken clocks cannot be efficaciously employed. It also means that it disagrees with actual experimental measurements: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true If you even bothered to read and understand it, they did NOT use broken clocks. http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/vf001.htm YOU are a reality-denier, and you lie hypocritically when you imply those who disagree with you are reality-deniers. That's what corrupt politians do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 22:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7248d286-47d9-4ab1-b1ea-32b177c42cf9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468303 |
On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Dead wrong again, ignoramus, I insist on talking about REALITY, about
> FACTS. Such things don't exist in your fantasy world.
>
> > we should probably provide a means for you to participate on your level.
> > Here are some equations for you to delete.
> >
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
>
> Do you see those two little horizontal bars between t' and t? That means
> that broken clocks cannot be efficaciously employed. It also means that
> it disagrees with actual experimental measurements:
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true
>
> If you even bothered to read and understand it, they did NOT use broken
> clocks.
>
> http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
>
> http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/vf001.htm
>
> YOU are a reality-denier, and you lie hypocritically when you imply those
> who disagree with you are reality-deniers. That's what corrupt politians do.
There, there, Gary. Maybe some of these nice scientists could comfort you with stories about the length contraction. In the meantime, here are some equations for you to delete.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 06:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a50f843-8e65-49ea-b57a-9c36827b4af0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468321 |
On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 11:41:06 PM UTC-6, Rathole Winn wrote: > > [Complete garbage regurgitated from a rat's behind] Deflection and regurgitation is your answer to facts that destroy your assertions. Don't you even have a clue about how dishonest that is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 07:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96a6bb8f-9c87-407d-9856-ad48813895a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468339 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 6:27:14 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 11:41:06 PM UTC-6, Rathole Winn wrote: > > > > [Complete garbage regurgitated from a rat's behind] > > Deflection and regurgitation is your answer to facts that destroy > your assertions. Don't you even have a clue about how dishonest > that is? I have to say, Gary, I think that was one of your better deletions that you have ever made.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 23:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63767b47-75d0-44a3-ace3-0d4c42ac484d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468303 |
On Sunday, 19 August 2018 00:26:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: > Do you see those two little horizontal bars between t' and t? That means > that broken clocks cannot be efficaciously employed. Gary, you stupid lying shit, it's YOUR clocks that are broken. Anyone can check at GPS - to work they have to be corrected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 00:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl2f15$2o1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467948 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:13:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> Here is how it works. If you have a faster or slower clock in a >>>>> satellite, and you use the time of that clock to calculate the >>>>> circumference of the orbit, you will get the same distance for the >>>>> circumference as you get from earth. Sorry to have to be the one to >>>>> acquaint you with reality. >>>> >>>> Sorry but what you just said is not true. >>> >>> Wonderful to see you make an actual statement. Go ahead and prove that >>> the length of the circumference of the orbit changes. >> >> There is related experimental data you should look at. It isn’t for orbital >> circumferences but experiments test principles and so a test of a principle >> over HERE informs the truth about how the principle applies over THERE. >> >>>> >>>>> I have told you several times the mistake you and other advocates of >>>>> modern science are making. If you define a second to be a certain number >>>>> of transitions of a cesium atom, you have to make certain the rate of >>>>> transitions does not change. >>>> >>>> That’s been verified experimentally by comparing the rates of those cesium >>>> atom radiation periods to other standard physical processes. If the cesium >>>> atoms changed then they would show a different number of radiation periods >>>> for the same physical process happening. >>>> >>> OK. The physical process we are discussing is one orbit of a GPS >>> satellite. Scientists claim that the result they get is that the clock >>> in the GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth. >> >> Repeating: this is not what scientists say. It is what you conclude based >> on what they actually say, and your conclusion is incorrect. >> >>> That means the transitions are faster in the satellite when the orbit of >>> the satellite is compared to a clock on earth. So there is a different >>> number of radiation periods for the physical process of an orbit of the satellite. >>> >>>>> If it does change, you have two different definitions for a second. Then >>>>> the axioms of algebra prevent you from using your two different >>>>> definitions of a second interchangeably. >>>> >>>> I’ll repeat that you seem to be in the habit of inventing axioms of algebra >>>> that aren’t really there. We’ve discussed the five axioms of algebra and >>>> what you seem to be referring to isn’t one of them. >>> >>> Well, you seem to be saying that there is an axiom that says that two >>> unequal things will become equal if you just put an equal sign between them. >> >> No I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that there is no axiom that >> says if you put an equal sign between two variables, then the statement is >> true. This is not logically equivalent to saying that if you put an equals >> sign between two variables, then there is an axiom that says the statement >> is false. You may have studied logic in high school, Robert? Must have been >> a long time ago, no? >> >>> >>>>> Until you address this problem, you are going to hate algebra and will >>>>> want to assume that you can use science as an artificial authority to >>>>> enforce a length contraction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Assume whatever crazy stuff you want, Robert. It isn’t true, but this >>>> doesn’t seem to stop you from making crazy conclusions like that. >>>> >>> Well, I would ask why are you here in a discussion of Galilean relativity >>> if you do not want to discuss Galilean relativity. >>> >> >> I’m here to discuss relativity, and your topic is not just confined to >> those people interested in Galilean relativity. You know, you could always >> create a newsgroup called sci.physics.relativity.galilean. That way you >> wouldn’t have pesky people who believe in the length contraction commenting >> on your posts. >> > No, you aren't here to discuss relativity. Yes I am. > If you were, you would be showing why the equation for the circumference > of a circle is wrong. In non flat spaces. And that’s not special to relativity. That’s background material. Here’s an interesting question Robert. Let’s see if you can get the answer right. Let’s say you are standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt Flats. You mark that spot, and then you walk away for a radius of two miles. Then you walk around your original spot in a circle, drawing a fine line on the ground as you go. Will the length of that line be equal to, less than, or more than 2*pi*(2 miles)? > As I said, all I have to know is how a satellite second compares to an > earth second, and I can tell you what the clock in the satellite says > anywhere in its orbit. So I call the time of the satellite clock n', its > time after it is adjusted to agree with an earth clock t', and the time > of the clock on earth t. > I can do the same thing with Einstein's slower clock in S' for motion in > a straight line using the Galilean transformation equations. > > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > y'=y > > x = x' - v'n' > y = y' > z = z' > n = n' > > n' is the time of Einstein's slower clock. t' is its time after it is > adjusted to agree with a clock in S. t is the time of a clock in S. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 19:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee3cd87b-2821-4b60-a61b-e3f800c35d0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467952 |
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:03:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:13:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> Here is how it works. If you have a faster or slower clock in a > >>>>> satellite, and you use the time of that clock to calculate the > >>>>> circumference of the orbit, you will get the same distance for the > >>>>> circumference as you get from earth. Sorry to have to be the one to > >>>>> acquaint you with reality. > >>>> > >>>> Sorry but what you just said is not true. > >>> > >>> Wonderful to see you make an actual statement. Go ahead and prove that > >>> the length of the circumference of the orbit changes. > >> > >> There is related experimental data you should look at. It isn’t for orbital > >> circumferences but experiments test principles and so a test of a principle > >> over HERE informs the truth about how the principle applies over THERE. > >> > >>>> > >>>>> I have told you several times the mistake you and other advocates of > >>>>> modern science are making. If you define a second to be a certain number > >>>>> of transitions of a cesium atom, you have to make certain the rate of > >>>>> transitions does not change. > >>>> > >>>> That’s been verified experimentally by comparing the rates of those cesium > >>>> atom radiation periods to other standard physical processes. If the cesium > >>>> atoms changed then they would show a different number of radiation periods > >>>> for the same physical process happening. > >>>> > >>> OK. The physical process we are discussing is one orbit of a GPS > >>> satellite. Scientists claim that the result they get is that the clock > >>> in the GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth. > >> > >> Repeating: this is not what scientists say. It is what you conclude based > >> on what they actually say, and your conclusion is incorrect. > >> > >>> That means the transitions are faster in the satellite when the orbit of > >>> the satellite is compared to a clock on earth. So there is a different > >>> number of radiation periods for the physical process of an orbit of the satellite. > >>> > >>>>> If it does change, you have two different definitions for a second. Then > >>>>> the axioms of algebra prevent you from using your two different > >>>>> definitions of a second interchangeably. > >>>> > >>>> I’ll repeat that you seem to be in the habit of inventing axioms of algebra > >>>> that aren’t really there. We’ve discussed the five axioms of algebra and > >>>> what you seem to be referring to isn’t one of them. > >>> > >>> Well, you seem to be saying that there is an axiom that says that two > >>> unequal things will become equal if you just put an equal sign between them. > >> > >> No I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that there is no axiom that > >> says if you put an equal sign between two variables, then the statement is > >> true. This is not logically equivalent to saying that if you put an equals > >> sign between two variables, then there is an axiom that says the statement > >> is false. You may have studied logic in high school, Robert? Must have been > >> a long time ago, no? > >> > >>> > >>>>> Until you address this problem, you are going to hate algebra and will > >>>>> want to assume that you can use science as an artificial authority to > >>>>> enforce a length contraction. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Assume whatever crazy stuff you want, Robert. It isn’t true, but this > >>>> doesn’t seem to stop you from making crazy conclusions like that. > >>>> > >>> Well, I would ask why are you here in a discussion of Galilean relativity > >>> if you do not want to discuss Galilean relativity. > >>> > >> > >> I’m here to discuss relativity, and your topic is not just confined to > >> those people interested in Galilean relativity. You know, you could always > >> create a newsgroup called sci.physics.relativity.galilean. That way you > >> wouldn’t have pesky people who believe in the length contraction commenting > >> on your posts. > >> > > No, you aren't here to discuss relativity. > > Yes I am. > > > If you were, you would be showing why the equation for the circumference > > of a circle is wrong. > > In non flat spaces. And that’s not special to relativity. That’s background > material. > > Here’s an interesting question Robert. Let’s see if you can get the answer > right. Let’s say you are standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt > Flats. You mark that spot, and then you walk away for a radius of two > miles. Then you walk around your original spot in a circle, drawing a fine > line on the ground as you go. Will the length of that line be equal to, > less than, or more than 2*pi*(2 miles)? Well, you are trying to say that the Bonneville Salt flats are not flat. That is supposed to confuse me about the orbit of a satellite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 02:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl2oo1$eeq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467959 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:03:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:13:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is how it works. If you have a faster or slower clock in a >>>>>>> satellite, and you use the time of that clock to calculate the >>>>>>> circumference of the orbit, you will get the same distance for the >>>>>>> circumference as you get from earth. Sorry to have to be the one to >>>>>>> acquaint you with reality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry but what you just said is not true. >>>>> >>>>> Wonderful to see you make an actual statement. Go ahead and prove that >>>>> the length of the circumference of the orbit changes. >>>> >>>> There is related experimental data you should look at. It isn’t for orbital >>>> circumferences but experiments test principles and so a test of a principle >>>> over HERE informs the truth about how the principle applies over THERE. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have told you several times the mistake you and other advocates of >>>>>>> modern science are making. If you define a second to be a certain number >>>>>>> of transitions of a cesium atom, you have to make certain the rate of >>>>>>> transitions does not change. >>>>>> >>>>>> That’s been verified experimentally by comparing the rates of those cesium >>>>>> atom radiation periods to other standard physical processes. If the cesium >>>>>> atoms changed then they would show a different number of radiation periods >>>>>> for the same physical process happening. >>>>>> >>>>> OK. The physical process we are discussing is one orbit of a GPS >>>>> satellite. Scientists claim that the result they get is that the clock >>>>> in the GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth. >>>> >>>> Repeating: this is not what scientists say. It is what you conclude based >>>> on what they actually say, and your conclusion is incorrect. >>>> >>>>> That means the transitions are faster in the satellite when the orbit of >>>>> the satellite is compared to a clock on earth. So there is a different >>>>> number of radiation periods for the physical process of an orbit of the satellite. >>>>> >>>>>>> If it does change, you have two different definitions for a second. Then >>>>>>> the axioms of algebra prevent you from using your two different >>>>>>> definitions of a second interchangeably. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’ll repeat that you seem to be in the habit of inventing axioms of algebra >>>>>> that aren’t really there. We’ve discussed the five axioms of algebra and >>>>>> what you seem to be referring to isn’t one of them. >>>>> >>>>> Well, you seem to be saying that there is an axiom that says that two >>>>> unequal things will become equal if you just put an equal sign between them. >>>> >>>> No I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that there is no axiom that >>>> says if you put an equal sign between two variables, then the statement is >>>> true. This is not logically equivalent to saying that if you put an equals >>>> sign between two variables, then there is an axiom that says the statement >>>> is false. You may have studied logic in high school, Robert? Must have been >>>> a long time ago, no? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Until you address this problem, you are going to hate algebra and will >>>>>>> want to assume that you can use science as an artificial authority to >>>>>>> enforce a length contraction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Assume whatever crazy stuff you want, Robert. It isn’t true, but this >>>>>> doesn’t seem to stop you from making crazy conclusions like that. >>>>>> >>>>> Well, I would ask why are you here in a discussion of Galilean relativity >>>>> if you do not want to discuss Galilean relativity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I’m here to discuss relativity, and your topic is not just confined to >>>> those people interested in Galilean relativity. You know, you could always >>>> create a newsgroup called sci.physics.relativity.galilean. That way you >>>> wouldn’t have pesky people who believe in the length contraction commenting >>>> on your posts. >>>> >>> No, you aren't here to discuss relativity. >> >> Yes I am. >> >>> If you were, you would be showing why the equation for the circumference >>> of a circle is wrong. >> >> In non flat spaces. And that’s not special to relativity. That’s background >> material. >> >> Here’s an interesting question Robert. Let’s see if you can get the answer >> right. Let’s say you are standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt >> Flats. You mark that spot, and then you walk away for a radius of two >> miles. Then you walk around your original spot in a circle, drawing a fine >> line on the ground as you go. Will the length of that line be equal to, >> less than, or more than 2*pi*(2 miles)? > > Well, you are trying to say that the Bonneville Salt flats are not flat. > That is supposed to confuse me about the orbit of a satellite. > I’m sorry you got confused. Not my intent. Have you got an answer to the question about the circumference of the salt flats circle? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 22:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <655ed31b-b262-4b7f-90dc-c4d2b1c57189@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467961 |
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 7:49:42 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:03:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:13:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here is how it works. If you have a faster or slower clock in a > >>>>>>> satellite, and you use the time of that clock to calculate the > >>>>>>> circumference of the orbit, you will get the same distance for the > >>>>>>> circumference as you get from earth. Sorry to have to be the one to > >>>>>>> acquaint you with reality. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry but what you just said is not true. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wonderful to see you make an actual statement. Go ahead and prove that > >>>>> the length of the circumference of the orbit changes. > >>>> > >>>> There is related experimental data you should look at. It isn’t for orbital > >>>> circumferences but experiments test principles and so a test of a principle > >>>> over HERE informs the truth about how the principle applies over THERE. > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have told you several times the mistake you and other advocates of > >>>>>>> modern science are making. If you define a second to be a certain number > >>>>>>> of transitions of a cesium atom, you have to make certain the rate of > >>>>>>> transitions does not change. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That’s been verified experimentally by comparing the rates of those cesium > >>>>>> atom radiation periods to other standard physical processes. If the cesium > >>>>>> atoms changed then they would show a different number of radiation periods > >>>>>> for the same physical process happening. > >>>>>> > >>>>> OK. The physical process we are discussing is one orbit of a GPS > >>>>> satellite. Scientists claim that the result they get is that the clock > >>>>> in the GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth. > >>>> > >>>> Repeating: this is not what scientists say. It is what you conclude based > >>>> on what they actually say, and your conclusion is incorrect. > >>>> > >>>>> That means the transitions are faster in the satellite when the orbit of > >>>>> the satellite is compared to a clock on earth. So there is a different > >>>>> number of radiation periods for the physical process of an orbit of the satellite. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> If it does change, you have two different definitions for a second. Then > >>>>>>> the axioms of algebra prevent you from using your two different > >>>>>>> definitions of a second interchangeably. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I’ll repeat that you seem to be in the habit of inventing axioms of algebra > >>>>>> that aren’t really there. We’ve discussed the five axioms of algebra and > >>>>>> what you seem to be referring to isn’t one of them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, you seem to be saying that there is an axiom that says that two > >>>>> unequal things will become equal if you just put an equal sign between them. > >>>> > >>>> No I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that there is no axiom that > >>>> says if you put an equal sign between two variables, then the statement is > >>>> true. This is not logically equivalent to saying that if you put an equals > >>>> sign between two variables, then there is an axiom that says the statement > >>>> is false. You may have studied logic in high school, Robert? Must have been > >>>> a long time ago, no? > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Until you address this problem, you are going to hate algebra and will > >>>>>>> want to assume that you can use science as an artificial authority to > >>>>>>> enforce a length contraction. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Assume whatever crazy stuff you want, Robert. It isn’t true, but this > >>>>>> doesn’t seem to stop you from making crazy conclusions like that. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Well, I would ask why are you here in a discussion of Galilean relativity > >>>>> if you do not want to discuss Galilean relativity. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I’m here to discuss relativity, and your topic is not just confined to > >>>> those people interested in Galilean relativity. You know, you could always > >>>> create a newsgroup called sci.physics.relativity.galilean. That way you > >>>> wouldn’t have pesky people who believe in the length contraction commenting > >>>> on your posts. > >>>> > >>> No, you aren't here to discuss relativity. > >> > >> Yes I am. > >> > >>> If you were, you would be showing why the equation for the circumference > >>> of a circle is wrong. > >> > >> In non flat spaces. And that’s not special to relativity. That’s background > >> material. > >> > >> Here’s an interesting question Robert. Let’s see if you can get the answer > >> right. Let’s say you are standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt > >> Flats. You mark that spot, and then you walk away for a radius of two > >> miles. Then you walk around your original spot in a circle, drawing a fine > >> line on the ground as you go. Will the length of that line be equal to, > >> less than, or more than 2*pi*(2 miles)? > > > > Well, you are trying to say that the Bonneville Salt flats are not flat. > > That is supposed to confuse me about the orbit of a satellite. > > > > I’m sorry you got confused. Not my intent. Have you got an answer to the > question about the circumference of the salt flats circle? > I have no idea about some particular place on the salt flats. I have never been there. A circle could be the same or smaller, depending on the curvature of the surface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl3v94$8h5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #467969 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 7:49:42 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you were, you would be showing why the equation for the circumference >>>>> of a circle is wrong. >>>> >>>> In non flat spaces. And that’s not special to relativity. That’s background >>>> material. >>>> >>>> Here’s an interesting question Robert. Let’s see if you can get the answer >>>> right. Let’s say you are standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt >>>> Flats. You mark that spot, and then you walk away for a radius of two >>>> miles. Then you walk around your original spot in a circle, drawing a fine >>>> line on the ground as you go. Will the length of that line be equal to, >>>> less than, or more than 2*pi*(2 miles)? >>> >>> Well, you are trying to say that the Bonneville Salt flats are not flat. >>> That is supposed to confuse me about the orbit of a satellite. >>> >> >> I’m sorry you got confused. Not my intent. Have you got an answer to the >> question about the circumference of the salt flats circle? >> > I have no idea about some particular place on the salt flats. I have > never been there. A circle could be the same or smaller, depending on > the curvature of the surface. > You may be correct. But let’s dive into your thinking. You just said, if I’m not mistaken, that the circumference C could be smaller than 2*pi*R, depending on the curvature of the surface. So since you believe that there is some axiom of algebra that says that if you write C=2*pi*R then the two little horizontal lines tell you the left side is equal to the right side, we may have a problem. What do you suppose is the root of the issue? Here are some options: 1. The value of 2 is different on the salt flats. 2. The value of pi is different on the salt flats. 3. The value of R is not 2 miles on the salt flats. 4. The salt flats prove that C=2*pi*R is false. 5. There is no axiom that insists that C=2*pi*R is true because of the equal sign. 7. C=2*pi*R is a formula that works in some clearly stated circumstances that do not hold on the salt flats. 8. Scientists have forced people to believe that C=2*pi*R is true as a scam to get money. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b81bf009-f0d8-4b50-a901-db314dadefc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467996 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:47:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 7:49:42 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> If you were, you would be showing why the equation for the circumference > >>>>> of a circle is wrong. > >>>> > >>>> In non flat spaces. And that’s not special to relativity. That’s background > >>>> material. > >>>> > >>>> Here’s an interesting question Robert. Let’s see if you can get the answer > >>>> right. Let’s say you are standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt > >>>> Flats. You mark that spot, and then you walk away for a radius of two > >>>> miles. Then you walk around your original spot in a circle, drawing a fine > >>>> line on the ground as you go. Will the length of that line be equal to, > >>>> less than, or more than 2*pi*(2 miles)? > >>> > >>> Well, you are trying to say that the Bonneville Salt flats are not flat. > >>> That is supposed to confuse me about the orbit of a satellite. > >>> > >> > >> I’m sorry you got confused. Not my intent. Have you got an answer to the > >> question about the circumference of the salt flats circle? > >> > > I have no idea about some particular place on the salt flats. I have > > never been there. A circle could be the same or smaller, depending on > > the curvature of the surface. > > > > You may be correct. But let’s dive into your thinking. You just said, if > I’m not mistaken, that the circumference C could be smaller than 2*pi*R, > depending on the curvature of the surface. So since you believe that there > is some axiom of algebra that says that if you write C=2*pi*R then the two > little horizontal lines tell you the left side is equal to the right side, > we may have a problem. What do you suppose is the root of the issue? Here > are some options: > > 1. The value of 2 is different on the salt flats. > 2. The value of pi is different on the salt flats. > 3. The value of R is not 2 miles on the salt flats. > 4. The salt flats prove that C=2*pi*R is false. > 5. There is no axiom that insists that C=2*pi*R is true because of the > equal sign. > 7. C=2*pi*R is a formula that works in some clearly stated circumstances > that do not hold on the salt flats. > 8. Scientists have forced people to believe that C=2*pi*R is true as a scam > to get money. Well, you forgot that you had rejected solid geometry as well as algebra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 17:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl4baq$ttp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468015 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:47:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 7:49:42 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you were, you would be showing why the equation for the circumference >>>>>>> of a circle is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> In non flat spaces. And that’s not special to relativity. That’s background >>>>>> material. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here’s an interesting question Robert. Let’s see if you can get the answer >>>>>> right. Let’s say you are standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt >>>>>> Flats. You mark that spot, and then you walk away for a radius of two >>>>>> miles. Then you walk around your original spot in a circle, drawing a fine >>>>>> line on the ground as you go. Will the length of that line be equal to, >>>>>> less than, or more than 2*pi*(2 miles)? >>>>> >>>>> Well, you are trying to say that the Bonneville Salt flats are not flat. >>>>> That is supposed to confuse me about the orbit of a satellite. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I’m sorry you got confused. Not my intent. Have you got an answer to the >>>> question about the circumference of the salt flats circle? >>>> >>> I have no idea about some particular place on the salt flats. I have >>> never been there. A circle could be the same or smaller, depending on >>> the curvature of the surface. >>> >> >> You may be correct. But let’s dive into your thinking. You just said, if >> I’m not mistaken, that the circumference C could be smaller than 2*pi*R, >> depending on the curvature of the surface. So since you believe that there >> is some axiom of algebra that says that if you write C=2*pi*R then the two >> little horizontal lines tell you the left side is equal to the right side, >> we may have a problem. What do you suppose is the root of the issue? Here >> are some options: >> >> 1. The value of 2 is different on the salt flats. >> 2. The value of pi is different on the salt flats. >> 3. The value of R is not 2 miles on the salt flats. >> 4. The salt flats prove that C=2*pi*R is false. >> 5. There is no axiom that insists that C=2*pi*R is true because of the >> equal sign. >> 7. C=2*pi*R is a formula that works in some clearly stated circumstances >> that do not hold on the salt flats. >> 8. Scientists have forced people to believe that C=2*pi*R is true as a scam >> to get money. > > Well, you forgot that you had rejected solid geometry as well as algebra. > Heck no, I’ve not rejected solid geometry. Let’s recall where we’ve gotten to. We discovered that there is a difference between doing geometry on a plane vs. doing geometry on a curved 2D surface. We discovered that by noting that C=2*pi*R doesn’t work on a curved 2D surface where the circle and the radius and the center all lie on that surface. What you can do is imagine a PLANE that is not that surface but intersects that surface. And if you choose a circle and a center and a radius that is on that PLANE, then C=2*pi*R works. And the lesson here is to not assume that flat-space geometric relations will work on a curved space. So now you want to talk about solid geometry. Fine, let’s talk about solid geometry. There’s a geometric relation for a sphere for example that says that if you have a center in space, and there is a radius R drawn in that space from the center to the sphere, then the area of the sphere is given by A=4*pi*R^2. And you can ask whether that relation works or not. Well, you may be already anticipating the answer, Robert, because you’re smart, though not particularly well informed of some facts. The answer is that it depends on whether the space (where you’ve drawn the sphere and the radius and the center) is flat or not. Here flat doesn’t mean two-dimensional or flat like a pancake. What it means is that it’s lacking inherent curvature. It’s an interesting exercise to understand what inherent curvature means at all, and actually a good way to think about that question is to ask how someone at the Bonneville Salt Flats who never knew the earth was round might be able to figure out that the salt flats is actually a surface with curvature. Now it’s entirely possible that you’ve never even considered the possibility of a 3D space that has inherent curvature. You’ve possibly never considered a 3D space where it’s possible that A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t work for a sphere in that space. You’ve possibly never considered the possibility that for a sphere in 3D space, to make A=4*pi*R^2 work, you have to find a center and a radius that don’t actually lie in that 3D space, just like you had to dig a hole and a trench in the Bonneville Salt Flats to find a center and a radius (not actually on that salt flats surface) to make C=2*pi*R work. And note that we’re not talking about the curvature of the circle, we are talking bout the curvature of the surface the circle is in. But somehow you were able to see the difference between curved surface geometry and flat surface geometry pretty quickly. So maybe it’s just a simple matter now to recognize the difference between flat solid geometry and curved solid geometry. And again here, even in the 3D case, we are not talking about the curvature of the sphere, we are talking about the curvature of the space the sphere is in. So, after all that, Robert, I’ll repeat that I like solid geometry. But I know enough to be careful about what solid geometry relations work in flat 3D space and which ones work in curved 3D space. A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t work in curved 3D space. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a09e95ba-93f7-4e0b-9c7a-bae33d2755c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468024 |
On Thursday, 16 August 2018 19:13:02 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Let’s recall where we’ve gotten to. We discovered that there is a > difference between doing geometry on a plane vs. doing geometry on a curved > 2D surface. Not even wrong, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d53879e-788f-40c9-b793-1247c95e95fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468024 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> > Heck no, I’ve not rejected solid geometry. > > Let’s recall where we’ve gotten to. We discovered that there is a > difference between doing geometry on a plane vs. doing geometry on a curved > 2D surface. We discovered that by noting that C=2*pi*R doesn’t work on a > curved 2D surface where the circle and the radius and the center all lie on > that surface. What you can do is imagine a PLANE that is not that surface > but intersects that surface. And if you choose a circle and a center and a > radius that is on that PLANE, then C=2*pi*R works. And the lesson here is > to not assume that flat-space geometric relations will work on a curved > space. > > So now you want to talk about solid geometry. Fine, let’s talk about solid > geometry. There’s a geometric relation for a sphere for example that says > that if you have a center in space, and there is a radius R drawn in that > space from the center to the sphere, then the area of the sphere is given > by A=4*pi*R^2. And you can ask whether that relation works or not. > > Well, you may be already anticipating the answer, Robert, because you’re > smart, though not particularly well informed of some facts. The answer is > that it depends on whether the space (where you’ve drawn the sphere and the > radius and the center) is flat or not. Here flat doesn’t mean > two-dimensional or flat like a pancake. What it means is that it’s lacking > inherent curvature. It’s an interesting exercise to understand what > inherent curvature means at all, and actually a good way to think about > that question is to ask how someone at the Bonneville Salt Flats who never > knew the earth was round might be able to figure out that the salt flats is > actually a surface with curvature. > > Now it’s entirely possible that you’ve never even considered the > possibility of a 3D space that has inherent curvature. You’ve possibly > never considered a 3D space where it’s possible that A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t > work for a sphere in that space. You’ve possibly never considered the > possibility that for a sphere in 3D space, to make A=4*pi*R^2 work, you > have to find a center and a radius that don’t actually lie in that 3D > space, just like you had to dig a hole and a trench in the Bonneville Salt > Flats to find a center and a radius (not actually on that salt flats > surface) to make C=2*pi*R work. And note that we’re not talking about the > curvature of the circle, we are talking bout the curvature of the surface > the circle is in. But somehow you were able to see the difference between > curved surface geometry and flat surface geometry pretty quickly. So maybe > it’s just a simple matter now to recognize the difference between flat > solid geometry and curved solid geometry. And again here, even in the 3D > case, we are not talking about the curvature of the sphere, we are talking > about the curvature of the space the sphere is in. > > So, after all that, Robert, I’ll repeat that I like solid geometry. But I > know enough to be careful about what solid geometry relations work in flat > 3D space and which ones work in curved 3D space. A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t work in > curved 3D space. > That seems fairly convenient for scientists. All they have to do is say that doesn't work in curved 3D space any time they do not like something. Personally, I think they are blowing smoke.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 20:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl4o15$1j8s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468056 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> >> Heck no, I’ve not rejected solid geometry. >> >> Let’s recall where we’ve gotten to. We discovered that there is a >> difference between doing geometry on a plane vs. doing geometry on a curved >> 2D surface. We discovered that by noting that C=2*pi*R doesn’t work on a >> curved 2D surface where the circle and the radius and the center all lie on >> that surface. What you can do is imagine a PLANE that is not that surface >> but intersects that surface. And if you choose a circle and a center and a >> radius that is on that PLANE, then C=2*pi*R works. And the lesson here is >> to not assume that flat-space geometric relations will work on a curved >> space. >> >> So now you want to talk about solid geometry. Fine, let’s talk about solid >> geometry. There’s a geometric relation for a sphere for example that says >> that if you have a center in space, and there is a radius R drawn in that >> space from the center to the sphere, then the area of the sphere is given >> by A=4*pi*R^2. And you can ask whether that relation works or not. >> >> Well, you may be already anticipating the answer, Robert, because you’re >> smart, though not particularly well informed of some facts. The answer is >> that it depends on whether the space (where you’ve drawn the sphere and the >> radius and the center) is flat or not. Here flat doesn’t mean >> two-dimensional or flat like a pancake. What it means is that it’s lacking >> inherent curvature. It’s an interesting exercise to understand what >> inherent curvature means at all, and actually a good way to think about >> that question is to ask how someone at the Bonneville Salt Flats who never >> knew the earth was round might be able to figure out that the salt flats is >> actually a surface with curvature. >> >> Now it’s entirely possible that you’ve never even considered the >> possibility of a 3D space that has inherent curvature. You’ve possibly >> never considered a 3D space where it’s possible that A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t >> work for a sphere in that space. You’ve possibly never considered the >> possibility that for a sphere in 3D space, to make A=4*pi*R^2 work, you >> have to find a center and a radius that don’t actually lie in that 3D >> space, just like you had to dig a hole and a trench in the Bonneville Salt >> Flats to find a center and a radius (not actually on that salt flats >> surface) to make C=2*pi*R work. And note that we’re not talking about the >> curvature of the circle, we are talking bout the curvature of the surface >> the circle is in. But somehow you were able to see the difference between >> curved surface geometry and flat surface geometry pretty quickly. So maybe >> it’s just a simple matter now to recognize the difference between flat >> solid geometry and curved solid geometry. And again here, even in the 3D >> case, we are not talking about the curvature of the sphere, we are talking >> about the curvature of the space the sphere is in. >> >> So, after all that, Robert, I’ll repeat that I like solid geometry. But I >> know enough to be careful about what solid geometry relations work in flat >> 3D space and which ones work in curved 3D space. A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t work in >> curved 3D space. >> > That seems fairly convenient for scientists. All they have to do is say > that doesn't work in curved 3D space any time they do not like something. > Personally, I think they are blowing smoke. > Well, here’s the interesting part. Though you never learned them in high school, there are relations for the circumference of a circle on a curved 2D space, and that involves an additional factor related to the intrinsic curvature of that space. So it is possible to calculate exactly from the radius of the circle as drawn right on the constant-elevation salt flats ground surface, and the intrinsic curvature, to get the circumference, and that number will match what you would actually measure for the circumference. So it’s more than saying that C=2*pi*R is not the right formula; rather, there is another formula that does work in non-flat spaces. It actually is best written as a series, and just showing the first term, it’s C=2*pi*R(1 - K*R^2/6 +...), where K is the intrinsic curvature. Using this series, you can calculate the circumference to any precision you need. And the same thing is true in 3D, though as you might imagine, the formula is a bit more complex than the one above. But it’s not like scientists are just saying “well, that flat space formula doesn’t work.” They actually have a different formula that works in 3D spaces with intrinsic curvature, and when I say it works, it’s been tested in actual experiments. So it’s not blowing smoke. It’s a fully tested out geometrical idea. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c77a0e4-834f-4326-8401-b094622fe90a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468072 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> > >> Heck no, I’ve not rejected solid geometry. > >> > >> Let’s recall where we’ve gotten to. We discovered that there is a > >> difference between doing geometry on a plane vs. doing geometry on a curved > >> 2D surface. We discovered that by noting that C=2*pi*R doesn’t work on a > >> curved 2D surface where the circle and the radius and the center all lie on > >> that surface. What you can do is imagine a PLANE that is not that surface > >> but intersects that surface. And if you choose a circle and a center and a > >> radius that is on that PLANE, then C=2*pi*R works. And the lesson here is > >> to not assume that flat-space geometric relations will work on a curved > >> space. > >> > >> So now you want to talk about solid geometry. Fine, let’s talk about solid > >> geometry. There’s a geometric relation for a sphere for example that says > >> that if you have a center in space, and there is a radius R drawn in that > >> space from the center to the sphere, then the area of the sphere is given > >> by A=4*pi*R^2. And you can ask whether that relation works or not. > >> > >> Well, you may be already anticipating the answer, Robert, because you’re > >> smart, though not particularly well informed of some facts. The answer is > >> that it depends on whether the space (where you’ve drawn the sphere and the > >> radius and the center) is flat or not. Here flat doesn’t mean > >> two-dimensional or flat like a pancake. What it means is that it’s lacking > >> inherent curvature. It’s an interesting exercise to understand what > >> inherent curvature means at all, and actually a good way to think about > >> that question is to ask how someone at the Bonneville Salt Flats who never > >> knew the earth was round might be able to figure out that the salt flats is > >> actually a surface with curvature. > >> > >> Now it’s entirely possible that you’ve never even considered the > >> possibility of a 3D space that has inherent curvature. You’ve possibly > >> never considered a 3D space where it’s possible that A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t > >> work for a sphere in that space. You’ve possibly never considered the > >> possibility that for a sphere in 3D space, to make A=4*pi*R^2 work, you > >> have to find a center and a radius that don’t actually lie in that 3D > >> space, just like you had to dig a hole and a trench in the Bonneville Salt > >> Flats to find a center and a radius (not actually on that salt flats > >> surface) to make C=2*pi*R work. And note that we’re not talking about the > >> curvature of the circle, we are talking bout the curvature of the surface > >> the circle is in. But somehow you were able to see the difference between > >> curved surface geometry and flat surface geometry pretty quickly. So maybe > >> it’s just a simple matter now to recognize the difference between flat > >> solid geometry and curved solid geometry. And again here, even in the 3D > >> case, we are not talking about the curvature of the sphere, we are talking > >> about the curvature of the space the sphere is in. > >> > >> So, after all that, Robert, I’ll repeat that I like solid geometry. But I > >> know enough to be careful about what solid geometry relations work in flat > >> 3D space and which ones work in curved 3D space. A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t work in > >> curved 3D space. > >> > > That seems fairly convenient for scientists. All they have to do is say > > that doesn't work in curved 3D space any time they do not like something. > > Personally, I think they are blowing smoke. > > > > Well, here’s the interesting part. > > Though you never learned them in high school, there are relations for the > circumference of a circle on a curved 2D space, and that involves an > additional factor related to the intrinsic curvature of that space. So it > is possible to calculate exactly from the radius of the circle as drawn > right on the constant-elevation salt flats ground surface, and the > intrinsic curvature, to get the circumference, and that number will match > what you would actually measure for the circumference. So it’s more than > saying that C=2*pi*R is not the right formula; rather, there is another > formula that does work in non-flat spaces. It actually is best written as a > series, and just showing the first term, it’s C=2*pi*R(1 - K*R^2/6 +...), > where K is the intrinsic curvature. Using this series, you can calculate > the circumference to any precision you need. > > And the same thing is true in 3D, though as you might imagine, the formula > is a bit more complex than the one above. But it’s not like scientists are > just saying “well, that flat space formula doesn’t work.” They actually > have a different formula that works in 3D spaces with intrinsic curvature, > and when I say it works, it’s been tested in actual experiments. > > So it’s not blowing smoke. It’s a fully tested out geometrical idea. Well, that is all wonderful. The problem I see is that you get a more complicated equation for the circumference of a circle, and you say, No one is allowed to use (2)(3.14)R any more. Everyone has to use this more complicated equation, and anyone caught using (2)(3.14)R will be punished severely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl52jf$7j8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468093 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> >>>> Heck no, I’ve not rejected solid geometry. >>>> >>>> Let’s recall where we’ve gotten to. We discovered that there is a >>>> difference between doing geometry on a plane vs. doing geometry on a curved >>>> 2D surface. We discovered that by noting that C=2*pi*R doesn’t work on a >>>> curved 2D surface where the circle and the radius and the center all lie on >>>> that surface. What you can do is imagine a PLANE that is not that surface >>>> but intersects that surface. And if you choose a circle and a center and a >>>> radius that is on that PLANE, then C=2*pi*R works. And the lesson here is >>>> to not assume that flat-space geometric relations will work on a curved >>>> space. >>>> >>>> So now you want to talk about solid geometry. Fine, let’s talk about solid >>>> geometry. There’s a geometric relation for a sphere for example that says >>>> that if you have a center in space, and there is a radius R drawn in that >>>> space from the center to the sphere, then the area of the sphere is given >>>> by A=4*pi*R^2. And you can ask whether that relation works or not. >>>> >>>> Well, you may be already anticipating the answer, Robert, because you’re >>>> smart, though not particularly well informed of some facts. The answer is >>>> that it depends on whether the space (where you’ve drawn the sphere and the >>>> radius and the center) is flat or not. Here flat doesn’t mean >>>> two-dimensional or flat like a pancake. What it means is that it’s lacking >>>> inherent curvature. It’s an interesting exercise to understand what >>>> inherent curvature means at all, and actually a good way to think about >>>> that question is to ask how someone at the Bonneville Salt Flats who never >>>> knew the earth was round might be able to figure out that the salt flats is >>>> actually a surface with curvature. >>>> >>>> Now it’s entirely possible that you’ve never even considered the >>>> possibility of a 3D space that has inherent curvature. You’ve possibly >>>> never considered a 3D space where it’s possible that A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t >>>> work for a sphere in that space. You’ve possibly never considered the >>>> possibility that for a sphere in 3D space, to make A=4*pi*R^2 work, you >>>> have to find a center and a radius that don’t actually lie in that 3D >>>> space, just like you had to dig a hole and a trench in the Bonneville Salt >>>> Flats to find a center and a radius (not actually on that salt flats >>>> surface) to make C=2*pi*R work. And note that we’re not talking about the >>>> curvature of the circle, we are talking bout the curvature of the surface >>>> the circle is in. But somehow you were able to see the difference between >>>> curved surface geometry and flat surface geometry pretty quickly. So maybe >>>> it’s just a simple matter now to recognize the difference between flat >>>> solid geometry and curved solid geometry. And again here, even in the 3D >>>> case, we are not talking about the curvature of the sphere, we are talking >>>> about the curvature of the space the sphere is in. >>>> >>>> So, after all that, Robert, I’ll repeat that I like solid geometry. But I >>>> know enough to be careful about what solid geometry relations work in flat >>>> 3D space and which ones work in curved 3D space. A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t work in >>>> curved 3D space. >>>> >>> That seems fairly convenient for scientists. All they have to do is say >>> that doesn't work in curved 3D space any time they do not like something. >>> Personally, I think they are blowing smoke. >>> >> >> Well, here’s the interesting part. >> >> Though you never learned them in high school, there are relations for the >> circumference of a circle on a curved 2D space, and that involves an >> additional factor related to the intrinsic curvature of that space. So it >> is possible to calculate exactly from the radius of the circle as drawn >> right on the constant-elevation salt flats ground surface, and the >> intrinsic curvature, to get the circumference, and that number will match >> what you would actually measure for the circumference. So it’s more than >> saying that C=2*pi*R is not the right formula; rather, there is another >> formula that does work in non-flat spaces. It actually is best written as a >> series, and just showing the first term, it’s C=2*pi*R(1 - K*R^2/6 +...), >> where K is the intrinsic curvature. Using this series, you can calculate >> the circumference to any precision you need. >> >> And the same thing is true in 3D, though as you might imagine, the formula >> is a bit more complex than the one above. But it’s not like scientists are >> just saying “well, that flat space formula doesn’t work.” They actually >> have a different formula that works in 3D spaces with intrinsic curvature, >> and when I say it works, it’s been tested in actual experiments. >> >> So it’s not blowing smoke. It’s a fully tested out geometrical idea. > > Well, that is all wonderful. The problem I see is that you get a more > complicated equation for the circumference of a circle, and you say, No > one is allowed to use (2)(3.14)R any more. Everyone has to use this more > complicated equation, and anyone caught using (2)(3.14)R will be punished severely. > > Well that is not what I say at all. There’s a good equation for the circumference of a circle if the circle is in a flat space. There’s a different equation for the circumference of a circle if the circle is in an intrinsically curved space. The proper usage depends on the case, of course. So there are two equations to use, depending. Now there may be some welders who might say, I have used only one equation for the circumference of a circle my whole life, and I have no room in my head for two different equations for the circumference of a circle and no room in my head to keep track of which I should use when. The same welders might also say, because I have chosen to use only one equation then it must be the correct one and the other one must be incorrect. The same welders might be so extreme to imagine that people who advocate two equations for circumference are telling everyone to just use one equation and are forbidding the use of one of them. But that would be crazy talk, wouldn’t it, Robert? That might be the kind of crazy talk (or lying, depending on how you look at it) that a welder might say when he hears something he doesn’t like. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 19:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2131ce0-dd3d-4658-9043-07dea2cd2842@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468097 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:50:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> > >>>> Heck no, I’ve not rejected solid geometry. > >>>> > >>>> Let’s recall where we’ve gotten to. We discovered that there is a > >>>> difference between doing geometry on a plane vs. doing geometry on a curved > >>>> 2D surface. We discovered that by noting that C=2*pi*R doesn’t work on a > >>>> curved 2D surface where the circle and the radius and the center all lie on > >>>> that surface. What you can do is imagine a PLANE that is not that surface > >>>> but intersects that surface. And if you choose a circle and a center and a > >>>> radius that is on that PLANE, then C=2*pi*R works. And the lesson here is > >>>> to not assume that flat-space geometric relations will work on a curved > >>>> space. > >>>> > >>>> So now you want to talk about solid geometry. Fine, let’s talk about solid > >>>> geometry. There’s a geometric relation for a sphere for example that says > >>>> that if you have a center in space, and there is a radius R drawn in that > >>>> space from the center to the sphere, then the area of the sphere is given > >>>> by A=4*pi*R^2. And you can ask whether that relation works or not. > >>>> > >>>> Well, you may be already anticipating the answer, Robert, because you’re > >>>> smart, though not particularly well informed of some facts. The answer is > >>>> that it depends on whether the space (where you’ve drawn the sphere and the > >>>> radius and the center) is flat or not. Here flat doesn’t mean > >>>> two-dimensional or flat like a pancake. What it means is that it’s lacking > >>>> inherent curvature. It’s an interesting exercise to understand what > >>>> inherent curvature means at all, and actually a good way to think about > >>>> that question is to ask how someone at the Bonneville Salt Flats who never > >>>> knew the earth was round might be able to figure out that the salt flats is > >>>> actually a surface with curvature. > >>>> > >>>> Now it’s entirely possible that you’ve never even considered the > >>>> possibility of a 3D space that has inherent curvature. You’ve possibly > >>>> never considered a 3D space where it’s possible that A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t > >>>> work for a sphere in that space. You’ve possibly never considered the > >>>> possibility that for a sphere in 3D space, to make A=4*pi*R^2 work, you > >>>> have to find a center and a radius that don’t actually lie in that 3D > >>>> space, just like you had to dig a hole and a trench in the Bonneville Salt > >>>> Flats to find a center and a radius (not actually on that salt flats > >>>> surface) to make C=2*pi*R work. And note that we’re not talking about the > >>>> curvature of the circle, we are talking bout the curvature of the surface > >>>> the circle is in. But somehow you were able to see the difference between > >>>> curved surface geometry and flat surface geometry pretty quickly. So maybe > >>>> it’s just a simple matter now to recognize the difference between flat > >>>> solid geometry and curved solid geometry. And again here, even in the 3D > >>>> case, we are not talking about the curvature of the sphere, we are talking > >>>> about the curvature of the space the sphere is in. > >>>> > >>>> So, after all that, Robert, I’ll repeat that I like solid geometry. But I > >>>> know enough to be careful about what solid geometry relations work in flat > >>>> 3D space and which ones work in curved 3D space. A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t work in > >>>> curved 3D space. > >>>> > >>> That seems fairly convenient for scientists. All they have to do is say > >>> that doesn't work in curved 3D space any time they do not like something. > >>> Personally, I think they are blowing smoke. > >>> > >> > >> Well, here’s the interesting part. > >> > >> Though you never learned them in high school, there are relations for the > >> circumference of a circle on a curved 2D space, and that involves an > >> additional factor related to the intrinsic curvature of that space. So it > >> is possible to calculate exactly from the radius of the circle as drawn > >> right on the constant-elevation salt flats ground surface, and the > >> intrinsic curvature, to get the circumference, and that number will match > >> what you would actually measure for the circumference. So it’s more than > >> saying that C=2*pi*R is not the right formula; rather, there is another > >> formula that does work in non-flat spaces. It actually is best written as a > >> series, and just showing the first term, it’s C=2*pi*R(1 - K*R^2/6 +...), > >> where K is the intrinsic curvature. Using this series, you can calculate > >> the circumference to any precision you need. > >> > >> And the same thing is true in 3D, though as you might imagine, the formula > >> is a bit more complex than the one above. But it’s not like scientists are > >> just saying “well, that flat space formula doesn’t work.” They actually > >> have a different formula that works in 3D spaces with intrinsic curvature, > >> and when I say it works, it’s been tested in actual experiments. > >> > >> So it’s not blowing smoke. It’s a fully tested out geometrical idea. > > > > Well, that is all wonderful. The problem I see is that you get a more > > complicated equation for the circumference of a circle, and you say, No > > one is allowed to use (2)(3.14)R any more. Everyone has to use this more > > complicated equation, and anyone caught using (2)(3.14)R will be punished severely. > > > > > > Well that is not what I say at all. > > There’s a good equation for the circumference of a circle if the circle is > in a flat space. There’s a different equation for the circumference of a > circle if the circle is in an intrinsically curved space. The proper usage > depends on the case, of course. So there are two equations to use, > depending. > > Now there may be some welders who might say, I have used only one equation > for the circumference of a circle my whole life, and I have no room in my > head for two different equations for the circumference of a circle and no > room in my head to keep track of which I should use when. The same welders > might also say, because I have chosen to use only one equation then it must > be the correct one and the other one must be incorrect. The same welders > might be so extreme to imagine that people who advocate two equations for > circumference are telling everyone to just use one equation and are > forbidding the use of one of them. But that would be crazy talk, wouldn’t > it, Robert? That might be the kind of crazy talk (or lying, depending on > how you look at it) that a welder might say when he hears something he > doesn’t like. Well, I don't tell you not to use your more complicated equation. But you do tell me not to use the equations I use. Now why is that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-17 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl6bql$298$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468099 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:50:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:13:02 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> >>>>>> Heck no, I’ve not rejected solid geometry. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let’s recall where we’ve gotten to. We discovered that there is a >>>>>> difference between doing geometry on a plane vs. doing geometry on a curved >>>>>> 2D surface. We discovered that by noting that C=2*pi*R doesn’t work on a >>>>>> curved 2D surface where the circle and the radius and the center all lie on >>>>>> that surface. What you can do is imagine a PLANE that is not that surface >>>>>> but intersects that surface. And if you choose a circle and a center and a >>>>>> radius that is on that PLANE, then C=2*pi*R works. And the lesson here is >>>>>> to not assume that flat-space geometric relations will work on a curved >>>>>> space. >>>>>> >>>>>> So now you want to talk about solid geometry. Fine, let’s talk about solid >>>>>> geometry. There’s a geometric relation for a sphere for example that says >>>>>> that if you have a center in space, and there is a radius R drawn in that >>>>>> space from the center to the sphere, then the area of the sphere is given >>>>>> by A=4*pi*R^2. And you can ask whether that relation works or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, you may be already anticipating the answer, Robert, because you’re >>>>>> smart, though not particularly well informed of some facts. The answer is >>>>>> that it depends on whether the space (where you’ve drawn the sphere and the >>>>>> radius and the center) is flat or not. Here flat doesn’t mean >>>>>> two-dimensional or flat like a pancake. What it means is that it’s lacking >>>>>> inherent curvature. It’s an interesting exercise to understand what >>>>>> inherent curvature means at all, and actually a good way to think about >>>>>> that question is to ask how someone at the Bonneville Salt Flats who never >>>>>> knew the earth was round might be able to figure out that the salt flats is >>>>>> actually a surface with curvature. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now it’s entirely possible that you’ve never even considered the >>>>>> possibility of a 3D space that has inherent curvature. You’ve possibly >>>>>> never considered a 3D space where it’s possible that A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t >>>>>> work for a sphere in that space. You’ve possibly never considered the >>>>>> possibility that for a sphere in 3D space, to make A=4*pi*R^2 work, you >>>>>> have to find a center and a radius that don’t actually lie in that 3D >>>>>> space, just like you had to dig a hole and a trench in the Bonneville Salt >>>>>> Flats to find a center and a radius (not actually on that salt flats >>>>>> surface) to make C=2*pi*R work. And note that we’re not talking about the >>>>>> curvature of the circle, we are talking bout the curvature of the surface >>>>>> the circle is in. But somehow you were able to see the difference between >>>>>> curved surface geometry and flat surface geometry pretty quickly. So maybe >>>>>> it’s just a simple matter now to recognize the difference between flat >>>>>> solid geometry and curved solid geometry. And again here, even in the 3D >>>>>> case, we are not talking about the curvature of the sphere, we are talking >>>>>> about the curvature of the space the sphere is in. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, after all that, Robert, I’ll repeat that I like solid geometry. But I >>>>>> know enough to be careful about what solid geometry relations work in flat >>>>>> 3D space and which ones work in curved 3D space. A=4*pi*R^2 doesn’t work in >>>>>> curved 3D space. >>>>>> >>>>> That seems fairly convenient for scientists. All they have to do is say >>>>> that doesn't work in curved 3D space any time they do not like something. >>>>> Personally, I think they are blowing smoke. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, here’s the interesting part. >>>> >>>> Though you never learned them in high school, there are relations for the >>>> circumference of a circle on a curved 2D space, and that involves an >>>> additional factor related to the intrinsic curvature of that space. So it >>>> is possible to calculate exactly from the radius of the circle as drawn >>>> right on the constant-elevation salt flats ground surface, and the >>>> intrinsic curvature, to get the circumference, and that number will match >>>> what you would actually measure for the circumference. So it’s more than >>>> saying that C=2*pi*R is not the right formula; rather, there is another >>>> formula that does work in non-flat spaces. It actually is best written as a >>>> series, and just showing the first term, it’s C=2*pi*R(1 - K*R^2/6 +...), >>>> where K is the intrinsic curvature. Using this series, you can calculate >>>> the circumference to any precision you need. >>>> >>>> And the same thing is true in 3D, though as you might imagine, the formula >>>> is a bit more complex than the one above. But it’s not like scientists are >>>> just saying “well, that flat space formula doesn’t work.” They actually >>>> have a different formula that works in 3D spaces with intrinsic curvature, >>>> and when I say it works, it’s been tested in actual experiments. >>>> >>>> So it’s not blowing smoke. It’s a fully tested out geometrical idea. >>> >>> Well, that is all wonderful. The problem I see is that you get a more >>> complicated equation for the circumference of a circle, and you say, No >>> one is allowed to use (2)(3.14)R any more. Everyone has to use this more >>> complicated equation, and anyone caught using (2)(3.14)R will be punished severely. >>> >>> >> >> Well that is not what I say at all. >> >> There’s a good equation for the circumference of a circle if the circle is >> in a flat space. There’s a different equation for the circumference of a >> circle if the circle is in an intrinsically curved space. The proper usage >> depends on the case, of course. So there are two equations to use, >> depending. >> >> Now there may be some welders who might say, I have used only one equation >> for the circumference of a circle my whole life, and I have no room in my >> head for two different equations for the circumference of a circle and no >> room in my head to keep track of which I should use when. The same welders >> might also say, because I have chosen to use only one equation then it must >> be the correct one and the other one must be incorrect. The same welders >> might be so extreme to imagine that people who advocate two equations for >> circumference are telling everyone to just use one equation and are >> forbidding the use of one of them. But that would be crazy talk, wouldn’t >> it, Robert? That might be the kind of crazy talk (or lying, depending on >> how you look at it) that a welder might say when he hears something he >> doesn’t like. > > Well, I don't tell you not to use your more complicated equation. But > you do tell me not to use the equations I use. Now why is that? > But I do tell you to use the equations you use. I tell you that repeatedly. Something in your head prevents you from hearing that. What’s incorrect is when you say you use your equations because they are the only correct ones to use. That’s just a mistake, Robert. But still, go on using them. You are not forbidden. Read that previous sentence nineteen times. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-17 16:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0b38cce-f8f5-4201-81b6-25d15d53a03e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468118 |
On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 4:33:45 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Well, I don't tell you not to use your more complicated equation. But > > you do tell me not to use the equations I use. Now why is that? > > > > But I do tell you to use the equations you use. I tell you that repeatedly. > Something in your head prevents you from hearing that. > > What’s incorrect is when you say you use your equations because they are > the only correct ones to use. That’s just a mistake, Robert. But still, go > on using them. You are not forbidden. Read that previous sentence nineteen > times. > Well, it certainly is gratifying to know that I have your permission to use the equation for the circumference of a circle. Now as far as who is correct and who is incorrect, there is something you are neglecting in all of this generosity. According to you, an observer in S sees a clock in S' as slower, while an observer in S' sees a clock in S as slower. According to the Galilean transformation equations, if an observer in S sees a clock in S' as slower, an observer in S' also sees the clock in S' as slower. Just a little detail you might want to consider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web