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 19 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 50 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 08:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plb92f$u4h$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #468268 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on >the ground by the side of the highway. And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the wrong answer!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 02:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c52d2fba-2446-4f6c-94a3-8aabe0794ddf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468324 |
On Sunday, 19 August 2018 10:17:21 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > > >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per > >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on > >the ground by the side of the highway. > > And there you go with broken clocks again! Michael, poor halfbrain, , it's YOUR clocks that are broken. Anyone can check at GPS - to work they have to be corrected. < The only thing that you can > prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the > wrong answer! That "time dilates".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 04:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a55fef4-8310-4029-b31e-98366d543cf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468324 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > > >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per > >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on > >the ground by the side of the highway. > > And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can > prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the > wrong answer! You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave. According to the equations you use, any clock that is moving is slower than a clock that is not moving if gravitation is not considered. So a clock that moves relative to a clock that is not moving, even if it moves at the speed of a snail, is slower than the non-moving clock. The only thing at question is the number of decimal places it will take to show the slower rate. I said the car was going sixty miles per hour. At sixty miles per hour, theoretically, according to GPS time, it takes the car exactly one minute to go from one mile marker to the next. That is just a mathematical fact. It is also a mathematical fact that according to the Lorentz equations, the clock in the car will be slower than the clock by the highway. How many decimal places it will take to show that difference, you can determine for yourself. But the information I gave agrees with current interpretation of the Lorentz equations. You cannot prove that any clocks are broken, even by your interpretation of broken clocks. All you can show is that from the frame of reference of an observer in S, a clock in S' is slower. Two sets of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity in S' agree that a clock in S' is slower and will agree with the Lorentz equation result for time of the moving clock at sixty miles per hour to a very great degree. So talking about broken clocks means nothing. What needs to be discussed is the real difference, that an observer in the car sees the clock by the road as slower. That is not the result using two sets of Galilean transformation equations. According to the Galilean transformation equations, an observer in the car will see the same thing as an observer by the highway, that the clock in the car is slower. That is not the wrong answer. It is the correct answer. The Lorentz equations and your interpretation of them give the wrong answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 18:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plccfr$25j$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #468334 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>> >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per
>> >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on
>> >the ground by the side of the highway.
>> And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can
>> prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the
>> wrong answer!
>You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave.
WTF??? You just said the clock ran slow!
Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. That
is, any observer riding along with the clock (for example, his wristwatch)
will ALWAYS see it working perfectly.
Your "clock slower than the one by the side of the highway" is your
mysterious Winn transform. You don't (won't) state exactly how it runs
slow, but let's say for example it runs at 99% of the rate of a proper
clock, meaning it will lose 1 minute for every 100 minutes. If you let
me know what the Winn Transform really is, I will use that instead.
So we have 3 transforms now.
1) Galilean transform from S to S'.
t'=t
2) Winn transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'.
n'=0.99*t'
1) Galilean transform from S' to S.
n=n'
Combine them all and you just get:
n=0.99*t
Which proves...broken clocks are broken. That's it. No proof the Lorentz
transform is wrong, or the Galilean transform is correct (since you also
use the Winn Transform)..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d6ba345-4a0f-4980-a345-a0a5f7ecb394@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468365 |
On Sunday, 19 August 2018 20:21:49 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. Michael, poor halfbrain, ideal (non-broken) clocks WORK. Your clocks don't. Anyone can checkk it at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6de8022-9e0b-4654-ac3d-6159d39e30c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468365 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:21:49 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per
> >> >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on
> >> >the ground by the side of the highway.
>
> >> And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can
> >> prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the
> >> wrong answer!
>
> >You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave.
>
> WTF??? You just said the clock ran slow!
>
> Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. That
> is, any observer riding along with the clock (for example, his wristwatch)
> will ALWAYS see it working perfectly.
>
> Your "clock slower than the one by the side of the highway" is your
> mysterious Winn transform. You don't (won't) state exactly how it runs
> slow, but let's say for example it runs at 99% of the rate of a proper
> clock, meaning it will lose 1 minute for every 100 minutes. If you let
> me know what the Winn Transform really is, I will use that instead.
>
> So we have 3 transforms now.
>
> 1) Galilean transform from S to S'.
>
> t'=t
>
> 2) Winn transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'.
>
> n'=0.99*t'
>
> 1) Galilean transform from S' to S.
>
> n=n'
>
> Combine them all and you just get:
>
> n=0.99*t
>
> Which proves...broken clocks are broken. That's it. No proof the Lorentz
> transform is wrong, or the Galilean transform is correct (since you also
> use the Winn Transform)..
There is no Winn Transform. I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one for the time of each clock.
x'=x-vt
y'= y
z'=z
t'=t
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a clock in S'. The equations do not specify how the times differ. The clock in S' could be slower like the clock Einstein describes, or the clock in S' could be faster like a clock in a GPS satellite.
So since you seem to be saying the equations could not apply to the clock Einstein was describing, let's say that the clock in S' shows a time of
n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That does not change any of the variables for space. There is still no length contraction. The clock in S' is just slower than the clock in S from either frame of reference. So if Einstein says he wants a clock with that rate, the correct way to show it when describing relativity is with two sets of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 23:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plcutp$64f$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #468387 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:21:49 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per
>> >> >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on
>> >> >the ground by the side of the highway.
>> >> And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can
>> >> prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the
>> >> wrong answer!
>> >You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave.
>> WTF??? You just said the clock ran slow!
>> Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. That
>> is, any observer riding along with the clock (for example, his wristwatch)
>> will ALWAYS see it working perfectly.
>> Your "clock slower than the one by the side of the highway" is your
>> mysterious Winn transform. You don't (won't) state exactly how it runs
>> slow, but let's say for example it runs at 99% of the rate of a proper
>> clock, meaning it will lose 1 minute for every 100 minutes. If you let
>> me know what the Winn Transform really is, I will use that instead.
>> So we have 3 transforms now.
>> 1) Galilean transform from S to S'.
>> t'=t
>> 2) Winn transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'.
>> n'=0.99*t'
>> 3) Galilean transform from S' to S.
>> n=n'
>> Combine them all and you just get:
>> n=0.99*t
>> Which proves...broken clocks are broken. That's it. No proof the Lorentz
>> transform is wrong, or the Galilean transform is correct (since you also
>> use the Winn Transform)..
>There is no Winn Transform.
OK, it doesn't matter what you call the "n=0.99*t" transform. Do you have
a name for this transform?
>I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one
>for the time of each clock.
Plus the nameless transform "n=0.99*t". A total of 3 transforms.
>t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a clock in S'.
You have two clocks in S'. n' and t'. The nameless transform relates them
since you state the n' clock is broken and runs slow. I am using
n'=0.99*t' as an example of the nameless transform where the broken n'
clock runs slow.
> The equations do not specify how the times differ.
That's what the unnamed transform has to define.
>So since you seem to be saying the equations could not apply to the clock
>Einstein was describing, let's say that the clock in S' shows a time of
>n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
That looks somewhat like the time portion of the Lorentz transform.
So in reality you do have two transforms, the nameless one to go from
the good clock in S to a broken clock in S', then the Galilean transform
to go from the broken n' to n.
But at least we have a (partial) definition for the nameless transform.
>That does not change any of the variables for space. There is still
>no length contraction.
Can you show the x, y, z portions of your nameless transform?
You just show time, plus confuse things by calling it n'.
Anyway, we have 2 transforms now.
1) Unnamed transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'.
n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
2) Galilean transform from S' to S.
n=n'
Combine them and you just get:
n = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Note that you use the Galilean transform just once, not twice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 22:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25d92c5f-67e7-4105-b6bc-c8c9609de940@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468396 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 4:36:27 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:21:49 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> >> >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per
> >> >> >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on
> >> >> >the ground by the side of the highway.
>
> >> >> And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can
> >> >> prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the
> >> >> wrong answer!
>
> >> >You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave.
>
> >> WTF??? You just said the clock ran slow!
>
> >> Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. That
> >> is, any observer riding along with the clock (for example, his wristwatch)
> >> will ALWAYS see it working perfectly.
Well, OK, we are taking that special theoretical case that Einstein described.
"As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest." A. Einstein
So now not only the clock is slow, but also the wristwatch as seen from the frame of reference where a clock shows t. Now scientists claim that from the frame of reference of the car, the clock on the ground is slower than the wristwatch and the clock in the car. This is the basic disagreement between the Galilean transformation equations and what scientists of today are doing. The Galilean transformation equations show the clock and the wristwatch in the car as being slower than the clock on the ground from both frames of reference.
I stumbled upon this disagreement when I purchased a clock that lost ten minutes per day from Walgreen's drug store. I had just determined that I was not visualizing relativity from the theory scientists were teaching with regard to the Lorentz equations, but was using the Galilean transformation equations to describe clocks with different rates of time. So I realized that the situation with the slower clock from Walgreen's was really no different from the slower clock Einstein was describing, which was when I put together the experiment with the car going 60 miles per hour between two mile markers on the highway and the slower clock from Walgreen's. A person in the car using the Walgreen's clock will believe the car is going faster than 60 miles per hour. The same is true of an observer in the car with a clock and wristwatch that are slower than a clock on the ground. The observer in the car will get a faster speed for the car than the observer on the ground considered from either frame of reference.
So Newton was correct in his assessment of relativity. He just did not know about the slower clock and watch in the car. In order to use Newton's correct interpretation, you have to convert the time of the clock and watch in the car to t' before using that time in Galileo's correct equations:
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
But until that is done, and to keep scientists from confusing us about times, we use a second set of Galilean transformation equations to show times and velocities according to the wristwatch and clock in the car.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the clock and wristwatch in the car. As you can see, x,y,z,x',y',z' are the same in both sets of equations, which is what causes scientists to be so confused. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction.
>
> >> Your "clock slower than the one by the side of the highway" is your
> >> mysterious Winn transform. You don't (won't) state exactly how it runs
> >> slow, but let's say for example it runs at 99% of the rate of a proper
> >> clock, meaning it will lose 1 minute for every 100 minutes. If you let
> >> me know what the Winn Transform really is, I will use that instead.
>
> >> So we have 3 transforms now.
>
> >> 1) Galilean transform from S to S'.
>
> >> t'=t
>
> >> 2) Winn transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'.
>
> >> n'=0.99*t'
>
> >> 3) Galilean transform from S' to S.
>
> >> n=n'
>
> >> Combine them all and you just get:
>
> >> n=0.99*t
>
> >> Which proves...broken clocks are broken. That's it. No proof the Lorentz
> >> transform is wrong, or the Galilean transform is correct (since you also
> >> use the Winn Transform)..
>
> >There is no Winn Transform.
>
> OK, it doesn't matter what you call the "n=0.99*t" transform. Do you have
> a name for this transform?
>
> >I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one
> >for the time of each clock.
>
> Plus the nameless transform "n=0.99*t". A total of 3 transforms.
>
> >t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a clock in S'.
>
> You have two clocks in S'. n' and t'. The nameless transform relates them
> since you state the n' clock is broken and runs slow. I am using
> n'=0.99*t' as an example of the nameless transform where the broken n'
> clock runs slow.
>
> > The equations do not specify how the times differ.
>
> That's what the unnamed transform has to define.
>
> >So since you seem to be saying the equations could not apply to the clock
> >Einstein was describing, let's say that the clock in S' shows a time of
> >n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
> That looks somewhat like the time portion of the Lorentz transform...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 16:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pleqtn$fiv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #468408 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 4:36:27 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:21:49 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per >> >> >> >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on >> >> >> >the ground by the side of the highway. >> >> >> And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can >> >> >> prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the >> >> >> wrong answer! >> >> >You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave. >> >> WTF??? You just said the clock ran slow! >> >> Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. That >> >> is, any observer riding along with the clock (for example, his wristwatch) >> >> will ALWAYS see it working perfectly. >Well, OK, we are taking that special theoretical case that Einstein described. >"As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from >this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the >clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat >larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly >than when at rest." A. Einstein You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Once again you ignored the phrases "As judged from K," and "as judged from this reference-body," as Einstein was explaining how the Lorentz transform he was using worked. The "As judged from" phrases mean to do the transform from S' to S. (or K/the reference body in this case) The moving clock perfectly tracks PROPER time, the time in S' (not S), or as Einstein would say "As judged from K'" or "As judged from S'". >So now not only the clock is slow, but also the wristwatch as seen from the= >frame of reference where a clock shows t. Which is the Lorentz transform. Besides, I said the wristwatch (local clock) always keeps perfect PROPER time, that is the correct time in the S' frame, which it does. The "As judged from" phrases mean using the S frame (what Einstein called the stationary frame), NOT the S' frame. So the clock Einstein was talking about still keeps perfect proper time, however the Lorentz transform from S' to S makes it appear to be slow to the S observer. How many times do you need to be told that? > Now scientists claim that from the frame of reference of the car, the >clock on the ground is slower than the wristwatch and the clock in the >car. The Lorentz transform, however the difference between it and what the Galilean transformation predicts is unmeasurable for a car. >This is the basic disagreement between the Galilean transformation >equations and what scientists of today are doing. They use the Lorentz transform when the speeds are enough for it to make sense to do the extra math. > The Galilean transformation equations show the clock and the wristwatch >in the car as being slower than the clock on the ground from both frames >of reference. No, it does not! Remember the Galilean transform states t'=t? So it will show the car clock, the wristwatch and the clock along the road will all read the same! Oh, except you insist on using broken clocks for some reason. > I stumbled upon this disagreement when I purchased a clock that lost ten > minutes per day from Walgreen's drug store. I had just determined that I >was not visualizing relativity from the theory scientists were teaching >with regard to the Lorentz equations, but was using the Galilean >transformation equations to describe clocks with different rates of time. >So I realized What you should have realized is that broken clocks give the wrong answer, so you should have pitched/returned that clock ASAP. Instead, you are now really, really confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab4053dc-6f3e-4622-b0c6-ad0ab605c5c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468461 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:40:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 4:36:27 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > > >> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:21:49 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > > >> >> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > > >> >> >> >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per > >> >> >> >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on > >> >> >> >the ground by the side of the highway. > > >> >> >> And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can > >> >> >> prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the > >> >> >> wrong answer! > > >> >> >You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave. > > >> >> WTF??? You just said the clock ran slow! > > >> >> Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. That > >> >> is, any observer riding along with the clock (for example, his wristwatch) > >> >> will ALWAYS see it working perfectly. > > > >Well, OK, we are taking that special theoretical case that Einstein described. > > >"As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from > >this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the > >clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat > >larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly > >than when at rest." A. Einstein > > You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Once again you > ignored the phrases "As judged from K," and "as judged from this > reference-body," as Einstein was explaining how the Lorentz transform he > was using worked. The "As judged from" phrases mean to do the transform > from S' to S. (or K/the reference body in this case) No, I am not stupid. I am very careful to make my replies in terms that should not offend people who believe in the things Einstein taught. Einstein taught that as judged from K, a clock in K' would be slower, but as judged from K', a clock in K would be slower, which, as anyone can see, is impossible. So I try to be kind in what I say to scientists who believe this stuff. > > The moving clock perfectly tracks PROPER time, the time in S' (not S), or > as Einstein would say "As judged from K'" or "As judged from S'". Yes, I know all about that. What we are discussing here in this discussion is the difference between these ridiculous ideas and what the Galilean transformation equations show. I try to be polite and kind to people who believe things that are not true. > >So now not only the clock is slow, but also the wristwatch as seen from the= > >frame of reference where a clock shows t. > > Which is the Lorentz transform. > Well, not exclusively. If n' is the time of a clock in S', then n' is probably also the time of a watch in S'. But that is just an assumption I am making. Scientists would have to determine for themselves if it is true. > Besides, I said the wristwatch (local clock) always keeps perfect PROPER > time, that is the correct time in the S' frame, which it does. The "As > judged from" phrases mean using the S frame (what Einstein called the > stationary frame), NOT the S' frame. So the clock Einstein was talking > about still keeps perfect proper time, however the Lorentz transform from > S' to S makes it appear to be slow to the S observer. > Well, it is not the Lorentz transform that makes the clock slower. According to Einstein, it was the motion of S' relative to S, which can also be shown by Galilean transformation equations. > How many times do you need to be told that? I don't need to be told anything. If this discussion is too difficult for you, why don't you take advantage of talking to some of these nice scientists in other discussions in sci.physics.relativity who are talking about things you might like. This is a discussion about the Galilean transformation equations, something scientists tend to find very distressing. > > > Now scientists claim that from the frame of reference of the car, the > >clock on the ground is slower than the wristwatch and the clock in the > >car. > > The Lorentz transform, however the difference between it and what the > Galilean transformation predicts is unmeasurable for a car. Well, the fact remains that for even something moving as slowly as a snail, there will be a length contraction in the direction of motion using the Lorentz equations. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. > >This is the basic disagreement between the Galilean transformation > >equations and what scientists of...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plf4ns$3mb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #468473 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:40:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >> >Well, OK, we are taking that special theoretical case that Einstein described. >> >"As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from >> >this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the >> >clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat >> >larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly >> >than when at rest." A. Einstein >> You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Once again you >> ignored the phrases "As judged from K," and "as judged from this >> reference-body," as Einstein was explaining how the Lorentz transform he >> was using worked. The "As judged from" phrases mean to do the transform >> from S' to S. (or K/the reference body in this case) >No, I am not stupid. I am very careful to make my replies in terms that >should not offend people who believe in the things Einstein taught. I wasn't talking about offending anyone. I was talking about your REPEATED attempts at inserting a broken clock n', "justifying" it by what you claim Einstein said. I try not to offend anyone who doesn't deserve it, however there is a point where I must assume that if someone does something wrong more than X times despite being told that is wrong, I can only assume the person is stupid, not ignorant or misunderstanding the subject. So do you now agree Einstein was not talking about adding a broken clock called n' in the S'/K' frame? Do you agree that he was talking about how a CORRECT clock in S'/K' (t') would appear in S/K?? >Einstein taught that as judged from K, a clock in K' would be slower, but >as judged from K', a clock in K would be slower, You interpret what he was saying correctly. So you see that he was not talking about adding a broken clock that physically ran slow anywhere? >...which, as anyone can see, is impossible. It APPEARS impossible at first but remember the two observers are NOT measuring the same thing. Another way of looking at it is like this: Assume both you and I are 6 feet tall. If we were standing eye to eye, each of us appears as full height to the other. However, if one of us walks 1000 feet away from the other, you will appear to be tiny to me and I would appear to be tiny to you. Wait, you say! If I appear tiny to you, you should appear HUGE to me! Like an ant appears tiny to you but you'd look huge to the ant! No, it is an appearance, neither of us became tiny. Same with clocks at high speeds. >> The moving clock perfectly tracks PROPER time, the time in S' (not S), or >> as Einstein would say "As judged from K'" or "As judged from S'". >Yes, I know all about that. What we are discussing here in this discussion > is the difference between these ridiculous ideas and what the Galilean >transformation equations show. I try to be polite and kind to people who believe things that are not true. Time dilation has been MEASURED, meaning the Galilean transform is wrong. Remember, in science, measurements and observations always overrule theory. >> >So now not only the clock is slow, but also the wristwatch as seen from the >> >frame of reference where a clock shows t. >> Which is the Lorentz transform. >Well, not exclusively. If n' is the time of a clock in S', then n' is >probably also the time of a watch in S'. But that is just an assumption >I am making. Your choice of variables makes that a poor assumption, since you've been using n/n' for a broken, slow clock, not for a transformed time (which would be t' in S', not n') > Scientists would have to determine for themselves if it is true. They HAVE measured time dilation. >> Besides, I said the wristwatch (local clock) always keeps perfect PROPER >> time, that is the correct time in the S' frame, which it does. The "As >> judged from" phrases mean using the S frame (what Einstein called the >> stationary frame), NOT the S' frame. So the clock Einstein was talking >> about still keeps perfect proper time, however the Lorentz transform from >> S' to S makes it appear to be slow to the S observer. >> >Well, it is not the Lorentz transform that makes the clock slower. Einstein was talking about what we now call the Lorentz transform. He was explaining WHY he felt that was correct. The Lorentz transform is what makes the clock in S' APPEAR to run slower to an observer in S. >According to Einstein, it was the motion of S' relative to S, which can >also be shown by Galilean transformation equations. Again, he was trying to explain why the Lorentz transform was correct and the Galilean transform wasn't. >> How many times do you need to be told that? >I don't need to be told anything. Yet you kept inserting a broken, slow clock n' in S' and kept claiming Einstein said so. I told you to quit doing that. > If this discussion is too difficult for you, why don't you take >advantage of talking to some of these nice scientists in other >discussions in sci.physics.relativity who are talking about things you >might like. What's this? You want me to go away because my posts are disrupting your fantasy world with actual facts? It appears this discussion is too difficult for you, not me, you haven't taken any related college courses for example. > This is a discussion about the Galilean transformation equations, Discussing why they are wrong is valid discussion of the Galilean transform. >something scientists tend to find very distressing. Nobody other than yourself finds any of this distressing. You appear to be projecting. >> The Lorentz transform, however the difference between it and what the >> Galilean transformation predicts is unmeasurable for a car. >Well, the fact remains that for even something moving as slowly as a snail, >there will be a length contraction in the direction of motion using the >Lorentz equations. Yes, that is what it predicts. Remember this is also an appearance between two comoving frames. And the length contraction of a snail is absurdly tiny. > The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. Yes, so? The big problem is it doesn't have a time dilation, which has been shown to exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <947829d6-c014-4c3c-b559-3f72d9704cf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468484 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:27:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:40:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >Well, OK, we are taking that special theoretical case that Einstein described.
>
> >> >"As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from
> >> >this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the
> >> >clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat
> >> >larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly
> >> >than when at rest." A. Einstein
>
> >> You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Once again you
> >> ignored the phrases "As judged from K," and "as judged from this
> >> reference-body," as Einstein was explaining how the Lorentz transform he
> >> was using worked. The "As judged from" phrases mean to do the transform
> >> from S' to S. (or K/the reference body in this case)
>
>
> >No, I am not stupid. I am very careful to make my replies in terms that
> >should not offend people who believe in the things Einstein taught.
>
> I wasn't talking about offending anyone. I was talking about your REPEATED
> attempts at inserting a broken clock n', "justifying" it by what you claim
> Einstein said. I try not to offend anyone who doesn't deserve it, however
> there is a point where I must assume that if someone does something wrong
> more than X times despite being told that is wrong, I can only assume the
> person is stupid, not ignorant or misunderstanding the subject. So do you
> now agree Einstein was not talking about adding a broken clock called n'
> in the S'/K' frame? Do you agree that he was talking about how a CORRECT
> clock in S'/K' (t') would appear in S/K??
A slower clock is a slower clock. If you want to call a slower clock CORRECT, that is fine with me. The Galilean transformation equations treat all slower clocks the same way. In order to use the time of a slower clock with the Galilean transformation equations, you would have to convert the time of that slower clock to t'. Then you could use it in these equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
>
> >Einstein taught that as judged from K, a clock in K' would be slower, but
> >as judged from K', a clock in K would be slower,
>
> You interpret what he was saying correctly. So you see that he was not
> talking about adding a broken clock that physically ran slow anywhere?
>
> >...which, as anyone can see, is impossible.
>
> It APPEARS impossible at first but remember the two observers are NOT
> measuring the same thing. Another way of looking at it is like this:
> Assume both you and I are 6 feet tall. If we were standing eye to eye,
> each of us appears as full height to the other. However, if one of us
> walks 1000 feet away from the other, you will appear to be tiny to me
> and I would appear to be tiny to you. Wait, you say! If I appear tiny
> to you, you should appear HUGE to me! Like an ant appears tiny to you
> but you'd look huge to the ant! No, it is an appearance, neither of us
> became tiny. Same with clocks at high speeds.
No, sorry, it is not the same. The Galilean transformation equations show what actually happens.
>
> >> The moving clock perfectly tracks PROPER time, the time in S' (not S), or
> >> as Einstein would say "As judged from K'" or "As judged from S'".
>
> >Yes, I know all about that. What we are discussing here in this discussion
> > is the difference between these ridiculous ideas and what the Galilean
> >transformation equations show. I try to be polite and kind to people who
> believe things that are not true.
>
> Time dilation has been MEASURED, meaning the Galilean transform is wrong.
> Remember, in science, measurements and observations always overrule
> theory.
>
Wonderful. Then you have two clocks with different rates. What you do in that case is use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity.
> >> >So now not only the clock is slow, but also the wristwatch as seen from the
> >> >frame of reference where a clock shows t.
>
> >> Which is the Lorentz transform.
>
> >Well, not exclusively. If n' is the time of a clock in S', then n' is
> >probably also the time of a watch in S'. But that is just an assumption
> >I am making.
>
> Your choice of variables makes that a poor assumption, since you've been
> using n/n' for a broken, slow clock, not for a transformed time (which
> would be t' in S', not n')
>
Algebra allows me to use whatever letters I choose to use for variables. I used n' for the time of Einstein's slower clock, whether you want to call it broken, unbroken, or whatever. I called it n'.
> > Scientists would have to determine for themselves if it is true.
>
> They HAVE measured time dilation.
>
> >> Besides, I said the wristwatch (local clock) always keeps perfect PROPER
> >> time, that is the correct time in the S' frame, which it does. The "As
> >> judged from" phrases mean using the S frame (what Einstein called the
> >> stationary frame), NOT the S' frame. So the clock Einstein was talking
> >> about still keeps perfect proper time, however the Lorentz transform from
> >> S' to S makes it appear to be slow to the S observer.
> >>
> >Well, it is not the Lorentz transform that makes the clock slower.
>
> Einstein was talking about what we now call the Lorentz transform. He
> was explaining WHY he felt that was correct. The Lorentz transform is
> what makes the clock in S' APPEAR to run slower to an observer in S.
>
> >According to Einstein, it was the motion ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1ab6ba7-78ab-4be4-be6f-531048f2bc28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468484 |
On Monday, 20 August 2018 21:27:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:40:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > >> >Well, OK, we are taking that special theoretical case that Einstein described. > > >> >"As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from > >> >this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the > >> >clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat > >> >larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly > >> >than when at rest." A. Einstein > > >> You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Once again you > >> ignored the phrases "As judged from K," and "as judged from this > >> reference-body," as Einstein was explaining how the Lorentz transform he > >> was using worked. The "As judged from" phrases mean to do the transform > >> from S' to S. (or K/the reference body in this case) > > > >No, I am not stupid. I am very careful to make my replies in terms that > >should not offend people who believe in the things Einstein taught. > > I wasn't talking about offending anyone. I was talking about your REPEATED > attempts at inserting a broken clock n', Michael, poor idiot, it's you that repeat attempts to inserting broken clocks. Anyone can check at GPS, your clocks can't work and need corrections. > Time dilation has been MEASURED Too bad you've used broken clocks for it, poor halfbrain. Serious clocks continue to indicate t'=t, just like serious clocks always did. Anyone can check it at GPS. > They HAVE measured time dilation. Too bad they've used broken clocks for it, poor halfbrain. Serious clocks continue to indicate t'=t, just like serious clocks always id. Anyone can check it at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b03a925-6987-4caa-bd2e-df97a2ded7be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468484 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:27:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >According to Einstein, it was the motion of S' relative to S, which can
> >also be shown by Galilean transformation equations.
>
> Again, he was trying to explain why the Lorentz transform was correct and
> the Galilean transform wasn't.
>
> >> How many times do you need to be told that?
>
> >I don't need to be told anything.
>
> Yet you kept inserting a broken, slow clock n' in S' and kept claiming
> Einstein said so. I told you to quit doing that.
That was nothing. Gary Harnagel started deleting the Galilean transformation equations every time I posted them.
>
> > If this discussion is too difficult for you, why don't you take
> >advantage of talking to some of these nice scientists in other
> >discussions in sci.physics.relativity who are talking about things you
> >might like.
>
> What's this? You want me to go away because my posts are disrupting your
> fantasy world with actual facts? It appears this discussion is too
> difficult for you, not me, you haven't taken any related college courses
> for example.
No, I am only a high school graduate. I am not impressed with higher education of today. Every subject I look at has false teachings that anyone should be able to see.
>
> > This is a discussion about the Galilean transformation equations,
>
> Discussing why they are wrong is valid discussion of the Galilean
> transform.
That is certainly reasonable. Here are the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Go ahead and tell us all what you find wrong with them.
> >something scientists tend to find very distressing.
>
> Nobody other than yourself finds any of this distressing.
> You appear to be projecting.
It is impossible to get me distressed since I figured this out.
> >> The Lorentz transform, however the difference between it and what the
> >> Galilean transformation predicts is unmeasurable for a car.
>
> >Well, the fact remains that for even something moving as slowly as a snail,
> >there will be a length contraction in the direction of motion using the
> >Lorentz equations.
>
> Yes, that is what it predicts. Remember this is also an appearance between
> two comoving frames. And the length contraction of a snail is absurdly
> tiny.
>
> > The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction.
>
> Yes, so? The big problem is it doesn't have a time dilation, which has
> been shown to exist.
Newton and Galileo also knew about clocks with different rates. We can also look at the planets. Mars rotates on its axis once every 24 hours and 39 minutes. Is Mars a broken planet?
What about the moons of Jupiter? They all rotate at different rates. Are they broken moons?
The Galilean transformation equations work just fine with any of these rates of time. What you have to be careful about, and I know this is going to seem unfair to scientists, is that you cannot take a time based on the rotation of one of Jupiter's moons and say that the time of one rotation of the earth is equal to the time of a rotation of one of Jupiter's moons.
Now, I know this is a difficult concept, but it also applies to transitions of cesium atoms. So if you have two different rates of transitions of cesium atoms, you cannot set them equal to each other in the Galilean transformation equations just because they are both called seconds. I know what a difficult concept this must seem to be to people who believe in a length contraction. It is junior high algebra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 11:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af0d2517-4773-4e2f-ae73-cd07577fcf80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468461 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:40:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > They use the Lorentz transform when the speeds are enough for it to make > sense to do the extra math. Well, I take the position that the Lorentz equations are not what scientists think they are. The same thing can be done with two sets of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity. > > > The Galilean transformation equations show the clock and the wristwatch > >in the car as being slower than the clock on the ground from both frames > >of reference. > > No, it does not! Remember the Galilean transform states t'=t? > So it will show the car clock, the wristwatch and the clock along the road > will all read the same! Oh, except you insist on using broken clocks for > some reason. If the Galilean transformation equations say t'=t, then they say nothing about any clocks that have different rates. If there is a clock with a different rate in any frame of reference, in order to use the time of that clock in the Galilean transformation equations, you would have to convert the time of the slower clock to t'. That is just junior high algebra. > > > I stumbled upon this disagreement when I purchased a clock that lost ten > > minutes per day from Walgreen's drug store. I had just determined that I > >was not visualizing relativity from the theory scientists were teaching > >with regard to the Lorentz equations, but was using the Galilean > >transformation equations to describe clocks with different rates of time. > >So I realized > > What you should have realized is that broken clocks give the wrong answer, > so you should have pitched/returned that clock ASAP. Instead, you are now > really, really confused. No, I am not really confused. I just understand how the Galilean transformation equations work. I kept the clock and would set it ahead ten minutes every night. It finally quit altogether a few months ago, and I threw it away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 22:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a2465b9-6385-4322-ad64-33b8e09d7f6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468396 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 4:36:27 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:21:49 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> >> >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per
> >> >> >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on
> >> >> >the ground by the side of the highway.
>
> >> >> And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can
> >> >> prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the
> >> >> wrong answer!
>
> >> >You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave.
>
> >> WTF??? You just said the clock ran slow!
>
> >> Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. That
> >> is, any observer riding along with the clock (for example, his wristwatch)
> >> will ALWAYS see it working perfectly.
>
> >> Your "clock slower than the one by the side of the highway" is your
> >> mysterious Winn transform. You don't (won't) state exactly how it runs
> >> slow, but let's say for example it runs at 99% of the rate of a proper
> >> clock, meaning it will lose 1 minute for every 100 minutes. If you let
> >> me know what the Winn Transform really is, I will use that instead.
>
> >> So we have 3 transforms now.
>
> >> 1) Galilean transform from S to S'.
>
> >> t'=t
>
> >> 2) Winn transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'.
>
> >> n'=0.99*t'
>
> >> 3) Galilean transform from S' to S.
>
> >> n=n'
>
> >> Combine them all and you just get:
>
> >> n=0.99*t
>
> >> Which proves...broken clocks are broken. That's it. No proof the Lorentz
> >> transform is wrong, or the Galilean transform is correct (since you also
> >> use the Winn Transform)..
>
> >There is no Winn Transform.
>
> OK, it doesn't matter what you call the "n=0.99*t" transform. Do you have
> a name for this transform?
>
> >I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one
> >for the time of each clock.
>
> Plus the nameless transform "n=0.99*t". A total of 3 transforms.
>
> >t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a clock in S'.
>
> You have two clocks in S'. n' and t'. The nameless transform relates them
> since you state the n' clock is broken and runs slow. I am using
> n'=0.99*t' as an example of the nameless transform where the broken n'
> clock runs slow.
>
> > The equations do not specify how the times differ.
>
> That's what the unnamed transform has to define.
>
> >So since you seem to be saying the equations could not apply to the clock
> >Einstein was describing, let's say that the clock in S' shows a time of
> >n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
> That looks somewhat like the time portion of the Lorentz transform.
>
> So in reality you do have two transforms, the nameless one to go from
> the good clock in S to a broken clock in S', then the Galilean transform
> to go from the broken n' to n.
>
> But at least we have a (partial) definition for the nameless transform.
>
> >That does not change any of the variables for space. There is still
> >no length contraction.
>
> Can you show the x, y, z portions of your nameless transform?
> You just show time, plus confuse things by calling it n'.
>
> Anyway, we have 2 transforms now.
>
> 1) Unnamed transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'.
>
> n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
> 2) Galilean transform from S' to S.
>
> n=n'
>
> Combine them and you just get:
>
> n = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
>
> Note that you use the Galilean transform just once, not twice.
Well, technically, there is only one set of Galilean transformation equations. What we are dealing with here are different interpretations of time. So suppose, since the name of this discussion is Newton and the Galilean transformation equations, we look at it the same way Newton and Galileo did. A second is a certain fraction of the time it takes for earth to rotate on its axis. When time has this definition, all we need is this set of equations:
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Then scientists come up with all kinds of different rates for clocks. A moving clock is slower than a clock at rest. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth. Not only that, but these are all "ideal" clocks. What scientists have neglected to consider is that none of these clocks change the rotation of the earth at all. The above equations still describe relativity perfectly. So what scientists are going to have to do is convert the times of their clocks with different rates to the above standard for time, the one Galileo and Newton used, the rotation of the earth.
But scientists are surely going to say, There is too much fluctuation in the earth's rotation. Cesium atoms work better. Well, no, they don't. You have cesium atoms with different rates all over the place. What you need to do is select one cesium atom that you think agrees with the earth's rotation and make that the standard. Then if you have cesium atoms with different rates from that one, you have to convert one rate to the other before using it in the Galilean transformation equations.
Or you can just go on using the incorrect ideas that scientists have been using for a hundred+ years. Personally, I believe that scientists are going to keep using the incorrect ideas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plesbq$fiv$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #468409 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 4:36:27 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >> >> So we have 3 transforms now. >> >> 1) Galilean transform from S to S'. >> >> t'=t >> >> 2) Winn transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'. >> >> n'=0.99*t' >> >> 3) Galilean transform from S' to S. >> >> n=n' >> >> Combine them all and you just get: >> >> n=0.99*t >> >> Which proves...broken clocks are broken. That's it. No proof the Lorentz >> >> transform is wrong, or the Galilean transform is correct (since you also >> >> use the Winn Transform).. >> >There is no Winn Transform. >> OK, it doesn't matter what you call the "n=0.99*t" transform. Do you have >> a name for this transform? >> >I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one >> >for the time of each clock. No, you do not. >> Plus the nameless transform "n=0.99*t". A total of 3 transforms. >> >t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a clock in S'. >> You have two clocks in S'. n' and t'. The nameless transform relates them >> since you state the n' clock is broken and runs slow. I am using >> n'=0.99*t' as an example of the nameless transform where the broken n' >> clock runs slow. >> > The equations do not specify how the times differ. >> That's what the unnamed transform has to define. >> Anyway, we have 2 transforms now. >> 1) Unnamed transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'. >> n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). >> 2) Galilean transform from S' to S. >> n=n' >> Combine them and you just get: >> n = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). >> Note that you use the Galilean transform just once, not twice. >Well, technically, there is only one set of Galilean transformation >equations. What we are dealing with here are different interpretations >of time. No, what we are dealing with is the mystery transform where you go from t to n' (the time displayed by the broken clock) and then the Galilean transform to go back to the S frame (your n=n' transform) >So suppose, since the name of this discussion is Newton and the Galilean >transformation equations, we look at it the same way Newton and Galileo >did. Newton and Galileo knew nothing about anything moving at relativisitic speeds, other than light itself, which they believed had an infinite speed. > A second is a certain fraction of the time it takes for earth to rotate on > its axis. Not any longer, since we now know the earth is slowing down in its rotation and is somewhat irregular. They have to add a "leap second" once every 18 months or so to keep up with changes in the rotation of the earth. >Then scientists come up with all kinds of different rates for clocks. They didn't "come up with" that, they can MEASURE that. >What scientists have neglected to consider is that none of these clocks >change the rotation of the earth at all. But something else does, which is why the old obsolete standard is no longer used. > The above equations still describe relativity perfectly. No, they do not. Time dilation has been MEASURED, thus ruling out the Galilean transform. > So what scientists are going to have to do is convert the times of >their clocks with different rates to the above standard for time, the >one Galileo and Newton used, the rotation of the earth. Again, they don't use that, too inaccurate. >But scientists are surely going to say, There is too much fluctuation in >the earth's rotation. Cesium atoms work better. Well, no, they don't. Yes, they do. >You have cesium atoms with different rates all over the place. No you don't! There is exactly ONE rate for that particular transistion in locally comoving clocks. > What you need to do is select one cesium atom that you think agrees >with the earth's rotation and make that the standard. They are all identical, they will ALL have the same rate. Besides, they no longer use something as inaccurate as the earth's rotation. > Then if you have cesium atoms with different rates from that one, They all have the same rate in a local comoving frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cfd7054-f876-475d-b206-60de0808c2f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468466 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:05:00 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >> >I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one
> >> >for the time of each clock.
>
> No, you do not.
Here are the two different sets of Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
Go ahead and explain why you do not think they are Galilean transformation equations or what it is that you do not understand about them.
> >Well, technically, there is only one set of Galilean transformation
> >equations. What we are dealing with here are different interpretations
> >of time.
>
> No, what we are dealing with is the mystery transform where you go from t
> to n' (the time displayed by the broken clock) and then the Galilean
> transform to go back to the S frame (your n=n' transform)
I do not go from t to n'. Scientists said that there was a clock in S' with a different rate than the clock in S that shows t. I just used a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity to show the time of the clock in S' with a different rate.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
Is there something about this that you do not understand?
> >So suppose, since the name of this discussion is Newton and the Galilean
> >transformation equations, we look at it the same way Newton and Galileo
> >did.
>
> Newton and Galileo knew nothing about anything moving at relativisitic
> speeds, other than light itself, which they believed had an infinite
> speed.
Newton and Galileo both encountered clocks that did not keep time correctly. They both knew how to represent that mathematically. They were both geniuses compared to scientists of today.
> > A second is a certain fraction of the time it takes for earth to rotate on
> > its axis.
>
> Not any longer, since we now know the earth is slowing down in its
> rotation and is somewhat irregular. They have to add a "leap second" once
> every 18 months or so to keep up with changes in the rotation of the
> earth.
Sorry, but I just told you what a second is. You can try to change it, but you will not succeed. If the rotation of the earth slows down the way you say is going to happen, you will have to change the number of transitions of a cesium atom a second is. A day is still going to remain a day, an hour is still going to remain an hour, a minute a minute, a second a second, and it is all dependent on the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate. People are going to count it by the rotation of the earth, not by transitions of cesium atoms. You will have to change the number of transitions.
> >Then scientists come up with all kinds of different rates for clocks.
>
> They didn't "come up with" that, they can MEASURE that.
Wonderful. They come up with things that they have measured.
> >What scientists have neglected to consider is that none of these clocks
> >change the rotation of the earth at all.
>
> But something else does, which is why the old obsolete standard is no
> longer used.
I still use it. So do other people who notice the difference between night and day.
> > The above equations still describe relativity perfectly.
>
> No, they do not. Time dilation has been MEASURED, thus ruling out the
> Galilean transform.
Rule out whatever you want to rule out. Maybe you can help Gary Harnagel in his efforts to delete the Galilean transformation equations. It is wonderful to see scientists actively engaged in the things they think are important.
> > So what scientists are going to have to do is convert the times of
> >their clocks with different rates to the above standard for time, the
> >one Galileo and Newton used, the rotation of the earth.
>
> Again, they don't use that, too inaccurate.
Again, you are not going to be able to change the rotation of the earth by means of scientific decrees.
> >But scientists are surely going to say, There is too much fluctuation in
> >the earth's rotation. Cesium atoms work better. Well, no, they don't.
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> >You have cesium atoms with different rates all over the place.
>
> No you don't! There is exactly ONE rate for that particular transistion
> in locally comoving clocks.
Well, but the locally comoving clocks are under different conditions of motion and gravitation. You have different locally comoving clocks showing all kinds of different times when compared with the rotation of the earth.
> > What you need to do is select one cesium atom that you think agrees
> >with the earth's rotation and make that the standard.
>
> They are all identical, they will ALL have the same rate. Besides, they no
> longer use something as inaccurate as the earth's rotation.
>
Well, I can see that there is no way to reason with you about it. Learn from your own experience. You are not going to be able to change the rotation of the earth.
> > Then if you have cesium atoms with different rates from that one,
>
> They all have the same rate in a local comoving frame.
Perhaps some of these nice scientists will be interested in your idea. I am going to keep using the Galilean transformation equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plfb5g$jns$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #468479 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:05:00 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one >> >> >for the time of each clock. >> No, you do not. >Here are the two different sets of Galilean transformation equations. And you use one of them. Explain in detail how you get the n' time from either t or t'. >> No, what we are dealing with is the mystery transform where you go from t >> to n' (the time displayed by the broken clock) and then the Galilean >> transform to go back to the S frame (your n=n' transform) >I do not go from t to n'. So you go from t' to n'? In that case you use 3 transforms, 2 Galilean transforms (one from t to t') and one mystery transform (t' to n'). > Scientists said that there was a clock in S' with a different rate >than the clock in S that shows t. So your "mystery transform" is what these "scientists" tell you to do? > I just used a different set of Galilean transformation equations with >different variables for time and velocity to show the time of the clock >in S' with a different rate. But you *still* haven't made it clear how you define/use the mystery transform to derive n'. >Is there something about this that you do not understand? Yeah, what is the mystery transform, how do you derive n'? >> > A second is a certain fraction of the time it takes for earth to rotate on >> > its axis. >> Not any longer, since we now know the earth is slowing down in its >> rotation and is somewhat irregular. They have to add a "leap second" once >> every 18 months or so to keep up with changes in the rotation of the >> earth. >Sorry, but I just told you what a second is. No, you don't get to define the second, SI does. "Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom." >You can try to change it, but you will not succeed. That's right, SI won't listen to me, 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom is a very accurate definition. > If the rotation of the earth slows down the way you > say is going to happen, Not "is going to happen", it has already been happening for millions of years, due to the moon and tides. And it has been measured. Also, I just read an article how the length of a day during the dinosaur times was a bit more than 23 hours. >you will have to change the number of transitions of a cesium atom a >second is. Why would I, or anyone else, want to deliberately introduce errors? >A day is still going to remain a day, an hour is still going to remain >an hour, a minute a minute, a second 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. >People are going to count it by the rotation of the earth, not by >transitions of cesium atoms. Not directly, but these days, so many thingies get their time from GPS or NTP, and they DO depends on cesium atom transitions. Also once in a while a leap second gets added because of inaccuracies in the earth rotation, just like an old analog clock may need to be set a few seconds ahead or back once in a while. Doing this makes sure those who depends on the earth are close enough and we won't ever have to deal with things like the sun rising at midnight because of accumulated rotational inaccuracies. > You will have to change the number of transitions. Again, why would anyone want to deliberately introduce errors? >> >What scientists have neglected to consider is that none of these clocks >> >change the rotation of the earth at all. >> But something else does, which is why the old obsolete standard is no >> longer used. >I still use it. So do other people who notice the difference between night > and day. But nobody who needs accuracy better than that (~500 ppb) does. >> > The above equations still describe relativity perfectly. >> No, they do not. Time dilation has been MEASURED, thus ruling out the >> Galilean transform. >Rule out whatever you want to rule out. Disregarding established FACTS is delusional. Delusions are probably why you got the Thorazine. Sorry to bring that up but delusional thinking disturbs me. >> > So what scientists are going to have to do is convert the times of >> >their clocks with different rates to the above standard for time, the >> >one Galileo and Newton used, the rotation of the earth. >> Again, they don't use that, too inaccurate. >Again, you are not going to be able to change the rotation of the earth by >means of scientific decrees. Scientific decrees won't change the rotation of the earth. The moon and the sun, via tides, can and do. Even earthquakes do. The change due to one of the big earthquakes in Indonesia has been measured. >> No you don't! There is exactly ONE rate for that particular transistion >> in locally comoving clocks. >Well, but the locally comoving clocks are under different conditions of >motion and gravitation. That sentence is self-contradicting. "Locally" means the same gravitational potential as the observer, and comoving basically means the clock doesn't move relative to him, so no GR/SR time dilation. The clocks all work identically. >You have different locally comoving clocks showing all kinds of >different times when compared with the rotation of the earth. You are very, very confused. >Well, I can see that there is no way to reason with you about it. Learn >from your own experience. You are not going to be able to change the >rotation of the earth. I'll let the moon, the sun and earthquakes do that. >Perhaps some of these nice scientists will be interested in your idea. I >am going to keep using the Galilean transformation equations. Why would a welder care? A welder will NEVER encounter a situation where it makes a difference in his welding career.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 17:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73f18c18-c006-4f6b-b039-f80162678a91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468515 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 2:17:38 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:05:00 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >> >> >I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one
> >> >> >for the time of each clock.
>
> >> No, you do not.
>
> >Here are the two different sets of Galilean transformation equations.
>
> And you use one of them.
>
> Explain in detail how you get the n' time from either t or t'.
I don't get the n' time from t or t'. I get it from scientists. They say they have clocks that are slower or faster than the clock in S that shows t. I say the time of one of these other clocks is n'. It cannot be t because scientists say is is the time of a clock that is slower or faster than the clock in S that shows t. It cannot be t' because t'=t. So I called it n'.
>
> >> No, what we are dealing with is the mystery transform where you go from t
> >> to n' (the time displayed by the broken clock) and then the Galilean
> >> transform to go back to the S frame (your n=n' transform)
>
> >I do not go from t to n'.
>
> So you go from t' to n'? In that case you use 3 transforms, 2 Galilean
> transforms (one from t to t') and one mystery transform (t' to n').
>
> > Scientists said that there was a clock in S' with a different rate
> >than the clock in S that shows t.
>
> So your "mystery transform" is what these "scientists" tell you to do?
>
Yes. According to the axioms of algebra, there would only be one way to represent the time of the slower or faster clock. That would be with another set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity.
> > I just used a different set of Galilean transformation equations with
> >different variables for time and velocity to show the time of the clock
> >in S' with a different rate.
>
> But you *still* haven't made it clear how you define/use the mystery
> transform to derive n'.
I don't derive n'. Scientists said it existed. How does n' compare with t? I don't know without the conditions of motion and gravitation being described. Scientists have all manner of ways of finding out what n' is. All I have are equations.
> >Is there something about this that you do not understand?
>
> Yeah, what is the mystery transform, how do you derive n'?
You could take two sets of Galilean transformation equations and do what Einstein did, substitute in x=ct and x'=cn', although he used x'=ct' and ended up with the Lorentz equations. With the Galilean transformation equations you get
x'=x-vt
cn' = ct-vt
n' = t -vct/c^2
which is the numerator of Lorentz's equation for t'. At the speed of the planet Mercury, 30 miles per second, this value of n' will agree with t' in the Lorentz equations to several decimal places, whereas, Newton's absolute time value for t' only agrees to a couple of decimal places. Other than that I could not tell you what a clock would read. Scientists have the data. I just say find out experimentally and put it into the equations.
> >> > A second is a certain fraction of the time it takes for earth to rotate on
> >> > its axis.
>
> >> Not any longer, since we now know the earth is slowing down in its
> >> rotation and is somewhat irregular. They have to add a "leap second" once
> >> every 18 months or so to keep up with changes in the rotation of the
> >> earth.
>
> >Sorry, but I just told you what a second is.
>
> No, you don't get to define the second, SI does. "Since 1967, the second
> has been defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 times the period of the
> radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels
> of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom."
>
> >You can try to change it, but you will not succeed.
>
> That's right, SI won't listen to me, 9,192,631,770 times the period of the
> radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels
> of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom is a very accurate definition.
>
> > If the rotation of the earth slows down the way you
> > say is going to happen,
>
> Not "is going to happen", it has already been happening for millions of
> years, due to the moon and tides. And it has been measured.
> Also, I just read an article how the length of a day during the dinosaur
> times was a bit more than 23 hours.
>
> >you will have to change the number of transitions of a cesium atom a
> >second is.
>
> Why would I, or anyone else, want to deliberately introduce errors?
>
> >A day is still going to remain a day, an hour is still going to remain
> >an hour, a minute a minute, a second
> 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the
> transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
> caesium-133 atom.
>
> >People are going to count it by the rotation of the earth, not by
> >transitions of cesium atoms.
>
> Not directly, but these days, so many thingies get their time from GPS or
> NTP, and they DO depends on cesium atom transitions. Also once in a while
> a leap second gets added because of inaccuracies in the earth rotation,
> just like an old analog clock may need to be set a few seconds ahead or
> back once in a while. Doing this makes sure those who depends on the
> earth are close enough and we won't ever have to deal with things like the
> sun rising at midnight because of accumulated rotational inaccuracies.
>
> > You will have to change the number of transitions.
>
> Again, why would anyone want to deliberately introduce errors?
>
> >> >What scientists have neglected to consider is that none of these clocks
> >> >change the rotation of the earth at all.
>
> >> But something else does, which is why the old obsolete standard is no
> >> longer used.
>
> >I still use it. So do other people who notice the difference between night
> > and day.
>
> But nobody who needs accuracy better than that (~500 ppb) does.
>
> >> > The above ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web