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 | 2018-08-31 10:00 -0700 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 27 participants
Thread has 2803 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity | Browse in flat view
Thread has 2803 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 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 14:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-31 07:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 12:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 21:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 16:12 -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 Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 12:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 21:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 16:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 01:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 20:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 14:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 09:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 17:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 10:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 20:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 23:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 06:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-02 07:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 07:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 18:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 20:46 +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 Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 08:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-31 10:00 -0700
Page 1 of 50 [1] 2 3 … 50 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 05:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Newton and Galilean Relativity |
| Message-ID | <2a271d2e-49a7-4987-9938-92b4801386ee@googlegroups.com> |
Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
According to Newton, all clocks in the universe that were working correctly would agree with one another. Starting with Lorentz and Einstein, modern scientists claim to have proven that the rates of clocks vary according to conditions of motion and gravitation. Their ideas are based on the Lorentz equations.
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y'=y
z'=z
t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
But we have to ask, if t' is less time than t, do the Lorentz equations agree with experiment?
All experiments that exist show that a slower clock results in a faster results for velocity. The Lorentz equations are an attempt to keep velocity as seen from S' the same as velocity as seen from S with clocks that disagree with each other.
Reality shows us something different. If there is a slower clock, as Einstein concludes there is, then the time of that clock is not shown in the Galilean transformation equations as Newton and Galileo used them. In order to use the time of a clock with any different rate in one set of Galilean transformation equations, you first have to convert the time of that clock to t', which means that it has to be converted to the time of a clock in S(x,y,z,t) because t'=t, and t is the time of a clock in S.
But, say scientists, we want to show the time of the slower clock in S' because we are using the scientific definition of time, where one second is a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, not a certain fraction of the time it takes earth to rotate on its axis, the way Newton and Galileo envisioned it. If scientists want to show the time of the slower clock, the correct way to do it is to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of a clock with a different rate, for whatever reason. v' is the velocity of S relative to S' according to the time of the clock in S' that shows n'. I understand that scientists do not want to discuss the Galilean transformation equations. That is completely understandable. Einstein's theory has been the greatest cash cow that science ever devised in terms of getting money from governments for "research".
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 23:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <yjyem34w0y9a.7y8qn66vyf63$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #466103 |
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote: > Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. > > x'=x-vt This is true only under const velocity and when x'=x at t=0 I would go actually x'=x+k1 Which is always true requardless of the velocity being const or not > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t similarly I would say y'=y+k2 z'=z+k3 t'=t+k4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 17:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <0e5b5054-ea13-ebf3-dc5c-71522c430b4e@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466105 |
SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote:
>> Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations.
>>
>> x'=x-vt
>
> This is true only under const velocity
Yes, that is what v IMPLIES.
> and when x'=x at t=0 […]
Utter nonsense. This is a COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION.
Say, for example, that the x-coordinate of an object in a chosen rest frame
is x = 4 (it is at rest in the rest frame), and another frame of reference
has moved inertially relative to the rest frame at v = 2 (towards the
right-hand side of it; for simplicity, I am omitting units here: you can
easily see that the equation is dimensionally consistent).
The question that is answered by the coordinate transformation is this:
If the origins of the two frames coincided (x = x' = 0) at t = 0, what is
the coordinate x' that one uses who is at rest in the moving frame of
reference for the same object at different times t, for example at time
t = 2?
The answer is, in Newtonian mechanics, using the Galilean transformation
(just PLUG IN THE VALUES):
x' = x − v t = 4 − 2 × 2 = 4 − 4 = 0.
And that is indeed the case, as the following diagrams show:
t = 0 (origins of the two frames coincide)
y ^ y'
:
:
: + (x = 4, t = 0) ≡ (x' = 4, t = 0)
: .
: .
: .
'-------+--------->
0 x, x'
t = 1 (frame with x' has moved 2 units of length to the right)
y ^ ^ y'
: :
: :
: : + (x = 4, t = 1) ≡ (x' = 2, t = 1)
: : .
: : .
: : .
'---'---+-------->--->
x x'
t = 2
y ^ y' ^
: :
: :
: + (x = 4, t = 2) ≡ (x' = 0, t = 2)
: :
: :
: :
'-------+------------>------>
x x'
At time t = 2 the frame with x' (we could call it frame S' or K') has moved
4 units of length to the right (of the frame with x; we could call it frame
S or K).
Why? Well, very simple: Its speed relative to the rest frame was 2 units of
length per unit time to the right, and two units of time have passed. As a
result, at that time 4 units of length have to be subtracted from every
x-coordinate to get the corresponding x'-coordinate. v × t = 2 × 2 = 4.
SIMPLE ARITHMETIC.
[And if we consider another equation of the Galilean transformation,
y' = y, we can see that this is trivially true as well: if the frame
only moves in the x-direction, then the y'-coordinate of the object
does NOT depend on time t: it is always equal to the value of the
y-coordinate. ObRelativity: This is true in the Lorentz transformation
as well.]
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 19:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91cbe98d-fb4f-4cbc-a196-948eb7cff276@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466114 |
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote:
> >> Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations.
> >>
> >> x'=x-vt
> >
> > This is true only under const velocity
>
> Yes, that is what v IMPLIES.
>
> > and when x'=x at t=0 […]
>
> Utter nonsense. This is a COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION.
>
> Say, for example, that the x-coordinate of an object in a chosen rest frame
> is x = 4 (it is at rest in the rest frame), and another frame of reference
> has moved inertially relative to the rest frame at v = 2 (towards the
> right-hand side of it; for simplicity, I am omitting units here: you can
> easily see that the equation is dimensionally consistent).
>
> The question that is answered by the coordinate transformation is this:
>
> If the origins of the two frames coincided (x = x' = 0) at t = 0, what is
> the coordinate x' that one uses who is at rest in the moving frame of
> reference for the same object at different times t, for example at time
> t = 2?
>
> The answer is, in Newtonian mechanics, using the Galilean transformation
> (just PLUG IN THE VALUES):
>
> x' = x − v t = 4 − 2 × 2 = 4 − 4 = 0.
>
> And that is indeed the case, as the following diagrams show:
>
> t = 0 (origins of the two frames coincide)
>
> y ^ y'
> :
> :
> : + (x = 4, t = 0) ≡ (x' = 4, t = 0)
> : .
> : .
> : .
> '-------+--------->
> 0 x, x'
>
> t = 1 (frame with x' has moved 2 units of length to the right)
>
> y ^ ^ y'
> : :
> : :
> : : + (x = 4, t = 1) ≡ (x' = 2, t = 1)
> : : .
> : : .
> : : .
> '---'---+-------->--->
> x x'
>
> t = 2
>
> y ^ y' ^
> : :
> : :
> : + (x = 4, t = 2) ≡ (x' = 0, t = 2)
> : :
> : :
> : :
> '-------+------------>------>
> x x'
>
> At time t = 2 the frame with x' (we could call it frame S' or K') has moved
> 4 units of length to the right (of the frame with x; we could call it frame
> S or K).
>
> Why? Well, very simple: Its speed relative to the rest frame was 2 units of
> length per unit time to the right, and two units of time have passed. As a
> result, at that time 4 units of length have to be subtracted from every
> x-coordinate to get the corresponding x'-coordinate. v × t = 2 × 2 = 4.
> SIMPLE ARITHMETIC.
>
> [And if we consider another equation of the Galilean transformation,
> y' = y, we can see that this is trivially true as well: if the frame
> only moves in the x-direction, then the y'-coordinate of the object
> does NOT depend on time t: it is always equal to the value of the
> y-coordinate. ObRelativity: This is true in the Lorentz transformation
> as well.]
>
Very good, but the problem that arises is that scientists tell us that in order for the frames of reference to agree with experiment, x'=ct', which cannot be true in the Galilean transformation equations because t'=t. ct would equal x, not x'. So it takes another set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity to describe the rate of time that scientists want to use in S'. If we call the time of this clock with a different rate n', then we can say
x = x'-v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the slower or faster clock in S'. Now if we wanted to use the first set of Galilean transformation equations the way scientists claim has to be done, we would need to convert n' into t' before using that time in the first set of equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 13:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <cfon8l5voefk.rfkr5tp9dyhl.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #466114 |
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:09:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > SolomonW wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote: >>> Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. >>> >>> x'=x-vt >> >> This is true only under const velocity > > Yes, that is what v IMPLIES. (a) Which makes it a special case mine is general. > >> and when x'=x at t=0 […] > > Utter nonsense. This is a COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION. > > Say, for example, that the x-coordinate of an object in a chosen rest frame > is x = 4 (it is at rest in the rest frame), and another frame of reference > has moved inertially relative to the rest frame at v = 2 (towards the > right-hand side of it; for simplicity, I am omitting units here: you can > easily see that the equation is dimensionally consistent). > > The question that is answered by the coordinate transformation is this: > > If the origins of the two frames coincided (x = x' = 0) at t = 0, what is *IF* see (a) above
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 13:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3dfada68-9e50-8c12-93a1-61592dcb0ab5@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #466174 |
SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:09:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote:
>>>> Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations.
>>>>
>>>> x'=x-vt
>>>
>>> This is true only under const velocity
>> Yes, that is what v IMPLIES.
>
> (a)
>
> Which makes it a special case mine is general.
Nonsense. Your equations (where you *add* some *undefined* quantities
despite *motion in the x+ direction*) are simply wrong (unless your
k1 = − v t, k2 = 0, k3 = 0, k4 = 0): they do not give the correct
coordinates in the moving frame for coordinates in the rest frame.
>> The question that is answered by the coordinate transformation is this:
>>
>> If the origins of the two frames coincided (x = x' = 0) at t = 0, what is
>
> *IF* see (a) above
So what? If the origins do not coincide at t = 0, then you have to
transform to the origin first. No big deal. For example:
x' = (x − x₀) − v t
where x₀ = x_O(t = 0) is the x-coordinate in the rest frame of the origin O
(oh) of the moving frame at t = 0.
t = 0:
y ^ ^ y'
: :
: :
+- + - + (x = 4, t = 0) ≡ (x' = 2, t = 0)
: : .
: '---+--------->
: O 2 x'
: .
'---+---+--------->
0 2 4 x
x'(t = 0) = (x(t = 0) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 0 = 2 − 0 = 2.
t = 1 (moving frame has moved 2 units of length to the right):
y ^ ^ y'
: :
: :
:- - - + (x = 4, t = 1) ≡ (x' = 0, t = 1)
: :
: '------------>
: 0 x'
: .
'-------+-------->
4 x
x'(t = 1) = (x − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 1 = 2 − 2 = 0.
t = 2 (moving frame has moved 4 units of length to the right):
y ^ y' ^
: :
: :
:- - - -+ - + (x = 4, t = 2) ≡ (x' = −2, t = 2)
: . :
: --+---+---------------->
: −2 0 x'
: .
'-------+------------>
4 x
x'(t = 2) = (x(t = 2) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 2 = 2 − 4 = −2. ∎
Likewise for the other coordinates.
You are merely arguing from your own ignorance.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35d81b82-ab6c-4f58-a8fc-9a51c2025ba6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466195 |
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:32:41 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:09:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> SolomonW wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>> Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations.
> >>>>
> >>>> x'=x-vt
> >>>
> >>> This is true only under const velocity
> >> Yes, that is what v IMPLIES.
> >
> > (a)
> >
> > Which makes it a special case mine is general.
>
> Nonsense. Your equations (where you *add* some *undefined* quantities
> despite *motion in the x+ direction*) are simply wrong (unless your
> k1 = − v t, k2 = 0, k3 = 0, k4 = 0): they do not give the correct
> coordinates in the moving frame for coordinates in the rest frame.
>
> >> The question that is answered by the coordinate transformation is this:
> >>
> >> If the origins of the two frames coincided (x = x' = 0) at t = 0, what is
> >
> > *IF* see (a) above
>
> So what? If the origins do not coincide at t = 0, then you have to
> transform to the origin first. No big deal. For example:
>
> x' = (x − x₀) − v t
>
> where x₀ = x_O(t = 0) is the x-coordinate in the rest frame of the origin O
> (oh) of the moving frame at t = 0.
>
> t = 0:
>
> y ^ ^ y'
> : :
> : :
> +- + - + (x = 4, t = 0) ≡ (x' = 2, t = 0)
> : : .
> : '---+--------->
> : O 2 x'
> : .
> '---+---+--------->
> 0 2 4 x
>
> x'(t = 0) = (x(t = 0) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 0 = 2 − 0 = 2.
>
> t = 1 (moving frame has moved 2 units of length to the right):
>
> y ^ ^ y'
> : :
> : :
> :- - - + (x = 4, t = 1) ≡ (x' = 0, t = 1)
> : :
> : '------------>
> : 0 x'
> : .
> '-------+-------->
> 4 x
>
> x'(t = 1) = (x − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 1 = 2 − 2 = 0.
>
> t = 2 (moving frame has moved 4 units of length to the right):
>
> y ^ y' ^
> : :
> : :
> :- - - -+ - + (x = 4, t = 2) ≡ (x' = −2, t = 2)
> : . :
> : --+---+---------------->
> : −2 0 x'
> : .
> '-------+------------>
> 4 x
>
> x'(t = 2) = (x(t = 2) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 2 = 2 − 4 = −2. ∎
>
> Likewise for the other coordinates.
>
> You are merely arguing from your own ignorance.
>
Well, here is the thing.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x = x' - v't'
y = y'
z = z'
t = t'
v'= -v
If you have a clock in S' with some rate other than the rate of time shown by t'=t, then the axioms of algebra require you to convert that rate of time into t' before using it in the above equations. Otherwise, your only real option is to make a set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity that represent the different rate of time.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
So now n' represents the time of the clock with a different rate than the rate of the clock in S. If scientists want to, they can use the time of the clock in S' with a different rate in these equations, keeping in mind that the speed between frames of reference is not equal from one frame of reference to the other because an S second and an S' second are not the same amount of time. So, as you can see, we are not using the scientific definition for a second here, where a second is equal to a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom. If the rate of transitions changes the way scientists claim it does, then we have two different definitions for a second, and we have to keep S' seconds separate from S seconds unless S' seconds are converted to t', the time coordinate for the first set of Galilean transformation equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjn3ok$1g61$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466198 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:32:41 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> SolomonW wrote: >>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:09:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> SolomonW wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>> Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an >>>>>> absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. >>>>>> >>>>>> x'=x-vt >>>>> >>>>> This is true only under const velocity >>>> Yes, that is what v IMPLIES. >>> >>> (a) >>> >>> Which makes it a special case mine is general. >> >> Nonsense. Your equations (where you *add* some *undefined* quantities >> despite *motion in the x+ direction*) are simply wrong (unless your >> k1 = − v t, k2 = 0, k3 = 0, k4 = 0): they do not give the correct >> coordinates in the moving frame for coordinates in the rest frame. >> >>>> The question that is answered by the coordinate transformation is this: >>>> >>>> If the origins of the two frames coincided (x = x' = 0) at t = 0, what is >>> >>> *IF* see (a) above >> >> So what? If the origins do not coincide at t = 0, then you have to >> transform to the origin first. No big deal. For example: >> >> x' = (x − x₀) − v t >> >> where x₀ = x_O(t = 0) is the x-coordinate in the rest frame of the origin O >> (oh) of the moving frame at t = 0. >> >> t = 0: >> >> y ^ ^ y' >>> : >>> : >> +- + - + (x = 4, t = 0) ≡ (x' = 2, t = 0) >>>> . >>> '---+---------> >>> O 2 x' >>> . >> '---+---+---------> >> 0 2 4 x >> >> x'(t = 0) = (x(t = 0) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 0 = 2 − 0 = 2. >> >> t = 1 (moving frame has moved 2 units of length to the right): >> >> y ^ ^ y' >>> : >>> : >> :- - - + (x = 4, t = 1) ≡ (x' = 0, t = 1) >>> : >>> '------------> >>> 0 x' >>> . >> '-------+--------> >> 4 x >> >> x'(t = 1) = (x − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 1 = 2 − 2 = 0. >> >> t = 2 (moving frame has moved 4 units of length to the right): >> >> y ^ y' ^ >>> : >>> : >> :- - - -+ - + (x = 4, t = 2) ≡ (x' = −2, t = 2) >>> . : >>> --+---+----------------> >>> −2 0 x' >>> . >> '-------+------------> >> 4 x >> >> x'(t = 2) = (x(t = 2) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 2 = 2 − 4 = −2. ∎ >> >> Likewise for the other coordinates. >> >> You are merely arguing from your own ignorance. >> > Well, here is the thing. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > x = x' - v't' > y = y' > z = z' > t = t' > > v'= -v > > If you have a clock in S' with some rate other than the rate of time > shown by t'=t, then the axioms of algebra require you to convert that > rate of time into t' before using it in the above equations. Or, as some people do — and this is just a suggestion — you can decide that the equations don’t always work well. This way, see, if you run into an equation like 1+7=93, you also won’t feel compelled by some imagined axiom to convert one of those numbers into another number just to try to say the equation is correct. >Otherwise, your only real option is to make a set of Galilean > transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity > that represent the different rate of time. Well, there is that other option I just described. But I can see you are bent on trying to please some imagined axiom. > > x = x' - v'n' > y = y' > z = z' > n = n' > > So now n' represents the time of the clock with a different rate than the > rate of the clock in S. If scientists want to, they can use the time of > the clock in S' with a different rate in these equations, keeping in mind > that the speed between frames of reference is not equal from one frame of > reference to the other because an S second and an S' second are not the > same amount of time. So, as you can see, we are not using the scientific > definition for a second here, where a second is equal to a certain number > of transitions of a cesium atom. If the rate of transitions changes the > way scientists claim it does, then we have two different definitions for > a second, and we have to keep S' seconds separate from S seconds unless > S' seconds are converted to t', the time coordinate for the first set of > Galilean transformation equations. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e06138e8-17d3-41e5-8f9e-6324bb8d1caf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466201 |
On Monday, 30 July 2018 15:27:56 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Or, as some people do — and this is just a suggestion — you can decide that > the equations don’t always work well. This way, see, if you run into an > equation like 1+7=93, You can also run into a mumble of some morons ignoring Euclidean rules for the sake of their Holiest Postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11e13f3f-4874-42d2-9798-efa515e9cebf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466201 |
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:27:56 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:32:41 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> SolomonW wrote: > >>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:09:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> SolomonW wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>> Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an > >>>>>> absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> x'=x-vt > >>>>> > >>>>> This is true only under const velocity > >>>> Yes, that is what v IMPLIES. > >>> > >>> (a) > >>> > >>> Which makes it a special case mine is general. > >> > >> Nonsense. Your equations (where you *add* some *undefined* quantities > >> despite *motion in the x+ direction*) are simply wrong (unless your > >> k1 = − v t, k2 = 0, k3 = 0, k4 = 0): they do not give the correct > >> coordinates in the moving frame for coordinates in the rest frame. > >> > >>>> The question that is answered by the coordinate transformation is this: > >>>> > >>>> If the origins of the two frames coincided (x = x' = 0) at t = 0, what is > >>> > >>> *IF* see (a) above > >> > >> So what? If the origins do not coincide at t = 0, then you have to > >> transform to the origin first. No big deal. For example: > >> > >> x' = (x − x₀) − v t > >> > >> where x₀ = x_O(t = 0) is the x-coordinate in the rest frame of the origin O > >> (oh) of the moving frame at t = 0. > >> > >> t = 0: > >> > >> y ^ ^ y' > >>> : > >>> : > >> +- + - + (x = 4, t = 0) ≡ (x' = 2, t = 0) > >>>> . > >>> '---+---------> > >>> O 2 x' > >>> . > >> '---+---+---------> > >> 0 2 4 x > >> > >> x'(t = 0) = (x(t = 0) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 0 = 2 − 0 = 2. > >> > >> t = 1 (moving frame has moved 2 units of length to the right): > >> > >> y ^ ^ y' > >>> : > >>> : > >> :- - - + (x = 4, t = 1) ≡ (x' = 0, t = 1) > >>> : > >>> '------------> > >>> 0 x' > >>> . > >> '-------+--------> > >> 4 x > >> > >> x'(t = 1) = (x − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 1 = 2 − 2 = 0. > >> > >> t = 2 (moving frame has moved 4 units of length to the right): > >> > >> y ^ y' ^ > >>> : > >>> : > >> :- - - -+ - + (x = 4, t = 2) ≡ (x' = −2, t = 2) > >>> . : > >>> --+---+----------------> > >>> −2 0 x' > >>> . > >> '-------+------------> > >> 4 x > >> > >> x'(t = 2) = (x(t = 2) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 2 = 2 − 4 = −2. ∎ > >> > >> Likewise for the other coordinates. > >> > >> You are merely arguing from your own ignorance. > >> > > Well, here is the thing. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > > x = x' - v't' > > y = y' > > z = z' > > t = t' > > > > v'= -v > > > > If you have a clock in S' with some rate other than the rate of time > > shown by t'=t, then the axioms of algebra require you to convert that > > rate of time into t' before using it in the above equations. > > Or, as some people do — and this is just a suggestion — you can decide that > the equations don’t always work well. This way, see, if you run into an > equation like 1+7=93, you also won’t feel compelled by some imagined axiom > to convert one of those numbers into another number just to try to say the > equation is correct. > > >Otherwise, your only real option is to make a set of Galilean > > transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity > > that represent the different rate of time. > > Well, there is that other option I just described. But I can see you are > bent on trying to please some imagined axiom. > > > > > x = x' - v'n' > > y = y' > > z = z' > > n = n' > > > > So now n' represents the time of the clock with a different rate than the > > rate of the clock in S. If scientists want to, they can use the time of > > the clock in S' with a different rate in these equations, keeping in mind > > that the speed between frames of reference is not equal from one frame of > > reference to the other because an S second and an S' second are not the > > same amount of time. So, as you can see, we are not using the scientific > > definition for a second here, where a second is equal to a certain number > > of transitions of a cesium atom. If the rate of transitions changes the > > way scientists claim it does, then we have two different definitions for > > a second, and we have to keep S' seconds separate from S seconds unless > > S' seconds are converted to t', the time coordinate for the first set of > > Galilean transformation equations. > > Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always believed them, personally. What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 21:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjnues$10ag$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466255 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:27:56 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:32:41 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> SolomonW wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:09:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> SolomonW wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>> Once again we need to consider rates of time. Isaac Newton used an >>>>>>>> absolute time interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> x'=x-vt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is true only under const velocity >>>>>> Yes, that is what v IMPLIES. >>>>> >>>>> (a) >>>>> >>>>> Which makes it a special case mine is general. >>>> >>>> Nonsense. Your equations (where you *add* some *undefined* quantities >>>> despite *motion in the x+ direction*) are simply wrong (unless your >>>> k1 = − v t, k2 = 0, k3 = 0, k4 = 0): they do not give the correct >>>> coordinates in the moving frame for coordinates in the rest frame. >>>> >>>>>> The question that is answered by the coordinate transformation is this: >>>>>> >>>>>> If the origins of the two frames coincided (x = x' = 0) at t = 0, what is >>>>> >>>>> *IF* see (a) above >>>> >>>> So what? If the origins do not coincide at t = 0, then you have to >>>> transform to the origin first. No big deal. For example: >>>> >>>> x' = (x − x₀) − v t >>>> >>>> where x₀ = x_O(t = 0) is the x-coordinate in the rest frame of the origin O >>>> (oh) of the moving frame at t = 0. >>>> >>>> t = 0: >>>> >>>> y ^ ^ y' >>>>> : >>>>> : >>>> +- + - + (x = 4, t = 0) ≡ (x' = 2, t = 0) >>>>>> . >>>>> '---+---------> >>>>> O 2 x' >>>>> . >>>> '---+---+---------> >>>> 0 2 4 x >>>> >>>> x'(t = 0) = (x(t = 0) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 0 = 2 − 0 = 2. >>>> >>>> t = 1 (moving frame has moved 2 units of length to the right): >>>> >>>> y ^ ^ y' >>>>> : >>>>> : >>>> :- - - + (x = 4, t = 1) ≡ (x' = 0, t = 1) >>>>> : >>>>> '------------> >>>>> 0 x' >>>>> . >>>> '-------+--------> >>>> 4 x >>>> >>>> x'(t = 1) = (x − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 1 = 2 − 2 = 0. >>>> >>>> t = 2 (moving frame has moved 4 units of length to the right): >>>> >>>> y ^ y' ^ >>>>> : >>>>> : >>>> :- - - -+ - + (x = 4, t = 2) ≡ (x' = −2, t = 2) >>>>> . : >>>>> --+---+----------------> >>>>> −2 0 x' >>>>> . >>>> '-------+------------> >>>> 4 x >>>> >>>> x'(t = 2) = (x(t = 2) − x₀) − v t = (4 − 2) − 2 × 2 = 2 − 4 = −2. ∎ >>>> >>>> Likewise for the other coordinates. >>>> >>>> You are merely arguing from your own ignorance. >>>> >>> Well, here is the thing. >>> >>> x'=x-vt >>> y'=y >>> z'=z >>> t'=t >>> >>> x = x' - v't' >>> y = y' >>> z = z' >>> t = t' >>> >>> v'= -v >>> >>> If you have a clock in S' with some rate other than the rate of time >>> shown by t'=t, then the axioms of algebra require you to convert that >>> rate of time into t' before using it in the above equations. >> >> Or, as some people do — and this is just a suggestion — you can decide that >> the equations don’t always work well. This way, see, if you run into an >> equation like 1+7=93, you also won’t feel compelled by some imagined axiom >> to convert one of those numbers into another number just to try to say the >> equation is correct. >> >>> Otherwise, your only real option is to make a set of Galilean >>> transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity >>> that represent the different rate of time. >> >> Well, there is that other option I just described. But I can see you are >> bent on trying to please some imagined axiom. >> >>> >>> x = x' - v'n' >>> y = y' >>> z = z' >>> n = n' >>> >>> So now n' represents the time of the clock with a different rate than the >>> rate of the clock in S. If scientists want to, they can use the time of >>> the clock in S' with a different rate in these equations, keeping in mind >>> that the speed between frames of reference is not equal from one frame of >>> reference to the other because an S second and an S' second are not the >>> same amount of time. So, as you can see, we are not using the scientific >>> definition for a second here, where a second is equal to a certain number >>> of transitions of a cesium atom. If the rate of transitions changes the >>> way scientists claim it does, then we have two different definitions for >>> a second, and we have to keep S' seconds separate from S seconds unless >>> S' seconds are converted to t', the time coordinate for the first set of >>> Galilean transformation equations. >>> > > Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always > believed them, personally. No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means that this statement is axiomatically true. > What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get > better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the axioms actually were. > But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just > throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean > transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the > Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? > I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 15:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <656873a7-e507-437d-99ce-9fdf65716236@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466266 |
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > > > > Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always > > believed them, personally. > > No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What > I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The > axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the > transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of > these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then > you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no > axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So > you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means > that this statement is axiomatically true. Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. > > > What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get > > better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. > > I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the > axioms actually were. > > > But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just > > throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean > > transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the > > Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? > > > > I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. > Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 22:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjo3d2$190e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466279 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>> >>> Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always >>> believed them, personally. >> >> No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What >> I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The >> axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the >> transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of >> these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then >> you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no >> axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So >> you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means >> that this statement is axiomatically true. > > Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two > variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to > study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. Oh I know about the axioms. There are five of them. None of them say what you claim they say. >> >>> What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get >>> better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. >> >> I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the >> axioms actually were. >> >>> But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just >>> throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean >>> transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the >>> Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? >>> >> >> I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. >> > Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this. Especially when you feel free to just make things up. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ef8be87-3249-4a33-b6d9-9b1366352591@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466283 |
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> > >>> > >>> Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always > >>> believed them, personally. > >> > >> No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What > >> I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The > >> axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the > >> transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of > >> these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then > >> you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no > >> axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So > >> you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means > >> that this statement is axiomatically true. > > > > Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two > > variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to > > study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. > > Oh I know about the axioms. There are five of them. None of them say what > you claim they say. > > >> > >>> What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get > >>> better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. > >> > >> I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the > >> axioms actually were. > >> > >>> But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just > >>> throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean > >>> transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the > >>> Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? > >>> > >> > >> I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. > >> > > Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this. > > Especially when you feel free to just make things up. > What do you think I made up? A variable is equal to itself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 00:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjoab0$1hrl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466297 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always >>>>> believed them, personally. >>>> >>>> No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What >>>> I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The >>>> axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the >>>> transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of >>>> these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then >>>> you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no >>>> axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So >>>> you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means >>>> that this statement is axiomatically true. >>> >>> Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two >>> variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to >>> study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. >> >> Oh I know about the axioms. There are five of them. None of them say what >> you claim they say. >> >>>> >>>>> What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get >>>>> better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. >>>> >>>> I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the >>>> axioms actually were. >>>> >>>>> But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just >>>>> throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean >>>>> transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the >>>>> Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. >>>> >>> Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this. >> >> Especially when you feel free to just make things up. >> > > What do you think I made up? A variable is equal to itself? > That’s reflexivity. That’s t=t. That’s not t’=t. See that apostrophe? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-30 21:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a0b312a-d73a-4505-adcc-15cffb32d69f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466302 |
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:26:13 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always > >>>>> believed them, personally. > >>>> > >>>> No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What > >>>> I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The > >>>> axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the > >>>> transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of > >>>> these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then > >>>> you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no > >>>> axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So > >>>> you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means > >>>> that this statement is axiomatically true. > >>> > >>> Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two > >>> variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to > >>> study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. > >> > >> Oh I know about the axioms. There are five of them. None of them say what > >> you claim they say. > >> > >>>> > >>>>> What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get > >>>>> better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. > >>>> > >>>> I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the > >>>> axioms actually were. > >>>> > >>>>> But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just > >>>>> throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean > >>>>> transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the > >>>>> Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. > >>>> > >>> Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this. > >> > >> Especially when you feel free to just make things up. > >> > > > > What do you think I made up? A variable is equal to itself? > > > > That’s reflexivity. That’s t=t. That’s not t’=t. See that apostrophe? > Yes, I do, but maybe you did not notice that if t' does not equal t, there is going to be a length contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 12:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjpl98$1irn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466310 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:26:13 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always >>>>>>> believed them, personally. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What >>>>>> I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The >>>>>> axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the >>>>>> transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of >>>>>> these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then >>>>>> you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no >>>>>> axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So >>>>>> you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means >>>>>> that this statement is axiomatically true. >>>>> >>>>> Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two >>>>> variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to >>>>> study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. >>>> >>>> Oh I know about the axioms. There are five of them. None of them say what >>>> you claim they say. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get >>>>>>> better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the >>>>>> axioms actually were. >>>>>> >>>>>>> But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just >>>>>>> throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean >>>>>>> transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the >>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. >>>>>> >>>>> Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this. >>>> >>>> Especially when you feel free to just make things up. >>>> >>> >>> What do you think I made up? A variable is equal to itself? >>> >> >> That’s reflexivity. That’s t=t. That’s not t’=t. See that apostrophe? >> > Yes, I do, but maybe you did not notice that if t' does not equal t, > there is going to be a length contraction. > Which has been experimentally verified. But I understand that you’d much rather base your beliefs on internal convictions than on the results of experimental observations. For spice, sometimes you’ll try to add to your argument by invoking axioms of algebra that you’ve made up, like if there is an equation between two variables, then an imaginary axiom says the equation must be true. Sometimes you’ll invoke some convoluted logic, like when you say that to measure the time coordinate t in S you’d use an ideal clock in S, but to measure the time coordinate t’ in S’ it’s improper to use an ideal clock in S’, as some experiment you ran with a broken clock shows. Then you imagine that people get highly emotional when you say such silly things. I for one don’t get emotional when you’re just being silly. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <862d363e-f0af-44da-9a20-24285d51baea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466322 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 5:39:07 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:26:13 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always > >>>>>>> believed them, personally. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What > >>>>>> I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The > >>>>>> axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the > >>>>>> transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of > >>>>>> these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then > >>>>>> you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no > >>>>>> axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So > >>>>>> you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means > >>>>>> that this statement is axiomatically true. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two > >>>>> variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to > >>>>> study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. > >>>> > >>>> Oh I know about the axioms. There are five of them. None of them say what > >>>> you claim they say. > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get > >>>>>>> better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the > >>>>>> axioms actually were. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just > >>>>>>> throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean > >>>>>>> transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the > >>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this. > >>>> > >>>> Especially when you feel free to just make things up. > >>>> > >>> > >>> What do you think I made up? A variable is equal to itself? > >>> > >> > >> That’s reflexivity. That’s t=t. That’s not t’=t. See that apostrophe? > >> > > Yes, I do, but maybe you did not notice that if t' does not equal t, > > there is going to be a length contraction. > > > > Which has been experimentally verified. > > But I understand that you’d much rather base your beliefs on internal > convictions than on the results of experimental observations. For spice, > sometimes you’ll try to add to your argument by invoking axioms of algebra > that you’ve made up, like if there is an equation between two variables, > then an imaginary axiom says the equation must be true. Sometimes you’ll > invoke some convoluted logic, like when you say that to measure the time > coordinate t in S you’d use an ideal clock in S, but to measure the time > coordinate t’ in S’ it’s improper to use an ideal clock in S’, as some > experiment you ran with a broken clock shows. Then you imagine that people > get highly emotional when you say such silly things. I for one don’t get > emotional when you’re just being silly. > Hey, I was not the one who said the equations were true. Galileo and Newton said they were true. I just happen to agree with Galileo and Newton.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 19:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjqbs7$tub$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #466343 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 5:39:07 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:26:13 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always >>>>>>>>> believed them, personally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What >>>>>>>> I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The >>>>>>>> axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the >>>>>>>> transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of >>>>>>>> these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then >>>>>>>> you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no >>>>>>>> axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So >>>>>>>> you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means >>>>>>>> that this statement is axiomatically true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two >>>>>>> variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to >>>>>>> study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh I know about the axioms. There are five of them. None of them say what >>>>>> you claim they say. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get >>>>>>>>> better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the >>>>>>>> axioms actually were. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just >>>>>>>>> throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean >>>>>>>>> transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the >>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Especially when you feel free to just make things up. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you think I made up? A variable is equal to itself? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That’s reflexivity. That’s t=t. That’s not t’=t. See that apostrophe? >>>> >>> Yes, I do, but maybe you did not notice that if t' does not equal t, >>> there is going to be a length contraction. >>> >> >> Which has been experimentally verified. >> >> But I understand that you’d much rather base your beliefs on internal >> convictions than on the results of experimental observations. For spice, >> sometimes you’ll try to add to your argument by invoking axioms of algebra >> that you’ve made up, like if there is an equation between two variables, >> then an imaginary axiom says the equation must be true. Sometimes you’ll >> invoke some convoluted logic, like when you say that to measure the time >> coordinate t in S you’d use an ideal clock in S, but to measure the time >> coordinate t’ in S’ it’s improper to use an ideal clock in S’, as some >> experiment you ran with a broken clock shows. Then you imagine that people >> get highly emotional when you say such silly things. I for one don’t get >> emotional when you’re just being silly. >> > Hey, I was not the one who said the equations were true. Galileo and > Newton said they were true. I just happen to agree with Galileo and Newton. > They said that, as far as experiments known at the time could tell, the equations were true. Unlike you, they didn’t just decide that they liked them. Now, neither one of them knew anything about electrodynamics. Had they known about electrodynamics, then they would have been able to access experimental information that would have determined which set of transform equations to believe. This is how science advances, Robert. Previous beliefs get vetted against new discoveries, and then candidates for new beliefs get selected as further experiment dictates. So if you want to say you just believe what Galileo and Newton believed, what you’re saying is that you care nothing about the discovery of electrodynamics in the 400 years since them, and you don’t want to take into account any additional experimental information gathered since then. You’ll just believe what the folks in the 1600’s believed. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-31 18:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec2aa372-a348-44c0-8cc8-780ae3fd6bfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466354 |
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 12:04:44 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 5:39:07 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:26:13 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:03:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well, you say that axioms of algebra are imaginary. I have always > >>>>>>>>> believed them, personally. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, Robert. I’m not saying that the axioms of algebra are imaginary. What > >>>>>>>> I’m saying is that you are imagining (incorrectly) what they are. The > >>>>>>>> axioms of algebra are the reflexive axiom, the symmetric axiom, the > >>>>>>>> transitive axiom, the additive axiom, and the multiplicative axiom. None of > >>>>>>>> these axioms say that if you have an equal sign between two things, then > >>>>>>>> you should believe that the two things are equal. That is, there is no > >>>>>>>> axiom of algebra that says that 1+7=92 just because of the equals sign. So > >>>>>>>> you are imagining that there is some axiom of algebra that says t’=t means > >>>>>>>> that this statement is axiomatically true. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, but we are saying that if there is an equal sign between two > >>>>>>> variables, not between integers that are unequal. Maybe you would want to > >>>>>>> study the axioms again. If you have more trouble with them, feel free to ask me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Oh I know about the axioms. There are five of them. None of them say what > >>>>>> you claim they say. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What I noticed in school was that when I followed the axioms, I would get > >>>>>>>>> better grades compared to the times when I did not follow them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think you might have gotten even better grades if you knew what the > >>>>>>>> axioms actually were. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But you are saying that now we are out of school, you might as well just > >>>>>>>>> throw the axioms of algebra into the trash along with the Galilean > >>>>>>>>> transformation equations. Scientists used to like algebra and the > >>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. What do you suppose happened? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I can’t imagine what you imagine happened. No telling with you, honestly. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, see, it is wonderful that we have this newsgroup to discuss things like this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Especially when you feel free to just make things up. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> What do you think I made up? A variable is equal to itself? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That’s reflexivity. That’s t=t. That’s not t’=t. See that apostrophe? > >>>> > >>> Yes, I do, but maybe you did not notice that if t' does not equal t, > >>> there is going to be a length contraction. > >>> > >> > >> Which has been experimentally verified. > >> > >> But I understand that you’d much rather base your beliefs on internal > >> convictions than on the results of experimental observations. For spice, > >> sometimes you’ll try to add to your argument by invoking axioms of algebra > >> that you’ve made up, like if there is an equation between two variables, > >> then an imaginary axiom says the equation must be true. Sometimes you’ll > >> invoke some convoluted logic, like when you say that to measure the time > >> coordinate t in S you’d use an ideal clock in S, but to measure the time > >> coordinate t’ in S’ it’s improper to use an ideal clock in S’, as some > >> experiment you ran with a broken clock shows. Then you imagine that people > >> get highly emotional when you say such silly things. I for one don’t get > >> emotional when you’re just being silly. > >> > > Hey, I was not the one who said the equations were true. Galileo and > > Newton said they were true. I just happen to agree with Galileo and Newton. > > > > They said that, as far as experiments known at the time could tell, the > equations were true. Unlike you, they didn’t just decide that they liked > them. > > Now, neither one of them knew anything about electrodynamics. Had they > known about electrodynamics, then they would have been able to access > experimental information that would have determined which set of transform > equations to believe. > > This is how science advances, Robert. Previous beliefs get vetted against > new discoveries, and then candidates for new beliefs get selected as > further experiment dictates. > > So if you want to say you just believe what Galileo and Newton believed, > what you’re saying is that you care nothing about the discovery of > electrodynamics in the 400 years since them, and you don’t want to take > into account any additional experimental information gathered since then. > You’ll just believe what the folks in the 1600’s believed. > Well, the folks in the 1600's were like me in that they did not believe in a length contraction. There were people in the 1600's who could convert one rate of time to another, something modern scientists seem unable to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 50 [1] 2 3 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web