Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470005 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-31 08:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-12-07 09:49 +0000 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 28 participants
Thread has 1627 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity | Browse in flat view
Thread has 1627 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 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
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 17:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-31 11:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 18:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-31 12:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 21:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-31 21:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 14:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-01 09:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-09-02 11:23 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 09:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-09-02 14:44 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 11:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-09-02 15:57 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 13:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-09-02 17:25 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 14:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-09-02 19:51 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 22:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-31 20:37 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-31 12:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 12:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 21:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 16:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-01 00:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 18:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 01:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 20:48 -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 20:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 03:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 05:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> - 2018-09-01 12:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 09:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 06:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 09:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 11:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 12:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 22:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 16:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 22:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-02 04:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 05:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-02 05:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-02 06:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Jeanclaude Erald <urdu@iufienv.vu> - 2018-09-02 12:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 07:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 07:29 -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 12:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 20:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-02 19:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 21:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-03 03:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 05:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-03 10:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 18:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-03 19:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 19:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-03 20:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 20:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-04 03:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 07:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-04 14:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-04 23:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 18:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 18:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 11:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 08:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 09:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 19:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-05 14:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-05 19:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 21:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 17:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 19:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 14:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-06 23:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-05 22:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 17:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-06 02:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 20:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-06 05:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 07:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-06 07:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-06 07:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-06 16:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-06 10:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-06 15:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 13:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-06 21:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 14:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-06 22:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-06 23:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-06 14:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-06 15:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-06 15:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-06 22:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 16:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-07 00:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 21:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-07 17:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 13:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-07 00:45 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-07 01:04 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-06 16:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 14:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-05 16:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-05 17:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 11:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 19:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 22:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 17:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 19:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:28 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 00:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 21:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 12:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-07 05:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 07:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 17:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 11:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 19:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 13:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 22:25 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 15:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 00:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 17:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-08 12:20 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 06:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-08 16:13 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 07:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-07 16:51 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 11:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-08 12:19 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 17:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 12:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-07 14:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-07 16:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 17:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-07 20:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 06:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-08 07:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 09:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-08 18:53 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 10:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-09 05:21 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 23:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-09 10:36 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-08 17:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 12:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-09 05:22 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 23:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-09 10:40 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 05:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-09 16:51 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 13:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 20:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-08 10:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 13:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-08 14:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 23:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-09 04:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-09 11:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 06:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 05:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-09 12:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 17:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-09 19:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 19:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 04:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-10 05:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 06:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 08:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 08:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 09:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 03:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 12:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 06:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 09:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 16:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 17:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 09:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 09:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 04:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 21:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 12:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 08:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-11 10:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 16:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 16:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-07 21:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 22:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 15:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 00:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 17:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 01:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 18:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 13:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 06:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 15:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 09:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-08 17:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 12:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 17:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 22:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 23:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-09 04:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-09 11:28 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 06:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 18:25 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 13:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 20:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 18:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 01:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 18:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 02:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 19:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 12:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 09:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 03:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 21:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 13:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 21:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 14:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 01:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 18:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 02:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 20:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 12:10 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 17:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 18:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-19 22:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 05:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 15:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 13:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-09 05:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-09 14:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-09 23:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 12:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 08:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 16:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 17:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 12:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 21:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 15:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 15:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 23:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 16:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 00:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 20:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 11:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 07:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-10 21:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-12 12:36 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 06:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 09:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 17:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 12:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 21:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 15:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 23:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 16:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 00:27 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 20:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 14:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 08:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 17:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 11:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 19:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 18:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-11 18:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 23:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-12 04:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 02:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 23:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 11:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 06:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 13:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 07:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 14:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 05:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 13:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-13 06:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 08:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 19:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 14:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 22:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 15:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-13 23:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 16:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 01:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 18:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 01:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 18:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-13 20:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 21:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-14 05:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 07:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-14 14:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-14 20:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 13:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-14 20:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 14:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 21:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 16:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-15 11:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-15 09:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-16 00:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-15 22:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-16 08:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-16 23:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 13:14 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-16 15:38 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 07:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 17:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 12:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 19:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 13:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 21:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 17:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 01:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 18:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 12:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-16 23:18 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 17:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-16 19:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 20:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 16:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 12:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 21:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 15:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 23:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 22:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 11:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 07:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 15:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 21:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 07:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-18 07:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 08:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-18 11:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-18 13:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 15:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-19 03:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 16:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 21:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 16:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 08:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 16:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-18 10:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 21:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 15:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 00:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 18:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 04:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-19 07:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 08:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-19 09:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 09:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-19 10:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 12:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 08:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 09:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 12:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 13:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 16:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 20:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 20:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 20:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 20:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-20 13:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 14:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-20 14:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 22:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 15:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 15:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-20 17:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 17:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-20 19:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 20:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-21 05:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-21 16:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 09:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-21 12:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 16:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-21 18:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 02:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-22 06:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 15:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 04:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 22:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 05:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 11:43 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 12:01 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 15:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-22 07:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 04:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 22:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 21:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 18:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 11:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 04:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 22:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 05:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-23 03:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirwv.on> - 2018-09-23 10:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 10:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 04:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-22 21:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 06:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 03:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 15:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 12:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 20:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 18:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-24 02:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 21:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-24 07:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 11:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 16:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 16:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 12:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 23:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 14:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 08:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 17:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 23:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 14:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 07:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 15:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-27 04:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 10:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-27 11:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 21:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 22:05 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 12:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-29 06:15 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 14:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 07:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 21:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 18:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 13:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 03:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 22:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 06:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 01:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 06:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 00:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 06:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 00:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 06:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 00:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 02:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 00:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 09:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 05:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 23:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:28 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 09:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:28 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 09:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 08:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:35 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 06:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 00:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 09:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 05:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 22:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 09:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:22 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-10-04 08:15 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 06:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-10-04 21:48 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Python <python@example.invalid> - 2018-10-06 15:27 +0200
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity ldzwinn@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 12:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity ldzwinn@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 12:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 23:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 09:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 13:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-28 23:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity ldzwinn@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 12:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 22:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 14:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 21:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 23:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-28 15:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-29 06:29 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 14:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-29 21:25 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 14:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 07:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-30 16:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 21:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 18:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 13:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 15:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 03:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 22:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 06:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 02:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-01 23:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-01 23:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:52 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 07:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-30 16:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-01 00:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:06 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 21:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 18:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-01 10:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 06:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-02 03:34 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-02 06:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-02 08:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 13:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 13:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity ldzwinn@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 12:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 19:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 21:53 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 15:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-26 09:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 23:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 14:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 21:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-27 04:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 10:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 21:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 08:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 17:49 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 22:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 06:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 03:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 15:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 12:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 20:25 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 14:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-23 23:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 18:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-23 19:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 21:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 12:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 23:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:18 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 14:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 07:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 17:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 23:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 14:58 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 19:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-26 20:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 21:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 12:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-27 04:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 05:20 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 10:31 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-27 10:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 20:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 21:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:37 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 21:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 21:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-24 11:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 12:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-24 22:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 16:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 23:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:32 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-25 00:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-25 03:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 23:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 17:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 23:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 14:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 07:45 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 15:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 21:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 15:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 21:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 21:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 21:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 18:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 12:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 14:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 12:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 21:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 13:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:41 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 16:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 03:46 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 22:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 05:23 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 02:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 23:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:55 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-02 08:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 21:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 23:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 00:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 02:19 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 08:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 18:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 05:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 17:27 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 04:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 21:48 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 23:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 06:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 00:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 12:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 06:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity ldzwinn@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 22:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 12:29 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 14:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 21:13 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 23:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:21 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 06:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 06:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 19:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 02:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 23:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 08:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 17:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 15:42 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 02:45 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 21:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 11:56 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-09 05:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 12:47 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-09 05:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-09 20:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 09:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 16:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 14:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:15 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 14:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 22:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 17:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 13:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 09:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 17:57 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 19:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 08:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:10 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 12:59 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 21:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 15:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 23:12 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 16:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 13:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 16:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 14:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 08:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 18:00 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 17:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 02:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 21:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 11:24 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 06:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 10:24 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 11:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 21:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 18:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:03 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 08:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 21:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 16:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 12:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-18 08:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 18:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 17:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 11:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 21:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 21:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-18 18:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 22:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-18 18:05 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-19 05:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 12:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-19 15:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 15:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-20 09:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 16:30 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-20 10:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-20 16:13 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-22 09:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-22 18:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-22 12:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-22 19:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-22 16:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 04:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-23 08:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 18:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-24 08:46 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-24 17:26 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-24 18:56 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-24 23:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-25 08:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 08:10 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-31 08:57 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 10:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 15:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:54 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 07:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 14:52 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 09:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 19:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 13:04 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 14:43 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 00:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 21:02 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 11:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 07:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 15:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 10:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 12:47 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 22:38 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 19:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:48 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-03 13:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 14:51 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 22:31 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:10 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 12:53 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-04 12:20 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 13:35 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-04 11:46 -0800
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:33 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:06 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 00:18 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:21 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 01:17 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 02:03 -0500
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:00 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 14:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 19:50 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 01:12 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 09:49 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-31 23:58 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 14:04 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 10:17 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-01 18:24 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 10:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 09:44 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 19:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 13:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 20:06 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 13:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-01 22:48 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 00:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 01:17 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 11:34 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 04:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 05:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 01:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 10:13 -0400
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-01 18:20 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 10:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 19:59 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 21:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 18:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 12:55 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 07:39 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 11:36 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 21:51 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 12:33 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-09 20:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:32 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 08:54 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 09:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 16:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 22:11 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 21:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 14:25 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 22:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 17:28 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 13:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-12 06:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 12:35 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 23:01 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 12:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 04:02 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 22:26 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 12:33 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 19:23 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity ldzwinn@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:16 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 00:21 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 15:53 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 21:11 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:16 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity ldzwinn@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 12:00 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 04:08 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 22:30 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 14:43 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 00:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:01 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:14 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 18:42 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity ldzwinn@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 12:08 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:09 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-30 22:37 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Talk.Origins@aol.com - 2018-10-03 03:40 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 13:50 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 13:22 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 14:38 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 15:55 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-01 03:32 +0100
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 21:41 -0700
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 16:09 +0000
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity rbwinn3@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 10:00 -0800
Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 09:49 +0000
Page 9 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 50 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c492c584-cbac-4719-8593-f1be4d5b71d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470839 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:04:49 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 5:52:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>> I think I answered this before. If nothing else, there is the
> >>> consequence of having to listen to you.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think it might be useful to notice something, Robert.
> >>
> >> We are both independent voters.
> >>
> >> We are both blue-collar craftsmen, and neither of us is a scientist.
> >>
> >> You are very patient and repeat yourself without tiring, always trying to
> >> be polite. I do exactly the same for you.
> >>
> >> You tell me I should do whatever works for me. I tell you the same thing
> >> about you.
> >>
> >> You tell me you are happy to keep posting the things you have to say. I
> >> tell you the same thing about me.
> >>
> >> I’m like your reflection in a mirror.
> >>
> >> So when you tell me that you’d rather that I not reply to your posts, this
> >> makes me wonder: do you tell your reflection in the mirror to stop looking
> >> at you, because the way it looks at you seems unhappy and it irritates you?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think this may be the case and might actually explain a lot. Call it a
> >> scientific hypothesis.
> >>
> > Well, what I notice is that you avoid discussing relativity and restrict
> > your remarks to little faults that you find in people. On the other
> > hand, I post relativity equations that you ignore completely.
>
> No sir. You post equations. The are not relativity equations. That’s
> already discussed.
>
Well, they are relativity equations. Let me explain how the Galilean transformation equations work.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x is a coordinate on the x-axis of S. S is a set of Cartesian coordinates at rest. x' is a coordinate on the x' axis of S'. S' is moving relative to S with a velocity of v. t is the time coordinate in S, t' is the time coordinate in S'. If the origins of S and S' align at t=0, then after some time passes, and t is a positive number, the origin of S' will have moved a distance of vt past the origin of S. So for any coordinate x in S, we have a coordinate x' in S' at the same point that is equal to x-vt. I know how difficult this must seem to people who believe in a length contraction. But if you want to simplify the proof that it is true, just move the -vt over to the other side of the equation. x=x'+vt You can see that the distance from the origin of x is equal to x' plus the distance S' has traveled relative to S.
But, you say, there is no length contraction. This cannot be true.
You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is always the same length as x. I know what a difficult concept this must be for people who have been taught that there is a length contraction.
Now we come to the matter of time coordinates. In the Galilean transformation equations these are t=t'.
The time in S' is the same as the time in S. We can illustrate this by using the rotation of the earth as our measurement of time. While S' is moving a distance of vt relative to S, the earth rotates a certain number of degrees on its axis. So if our velocity v is in miles per hour, we divide the fraction of one complete rotation of the earth that takes place by 24, and we have the time that works in our equation because the earth rotates once every 24 hours. I know how difficult this must be to visualize for people who believe in a length contraction. Then we see from our equation for time that, amazingly, the same amount of time takes place in S'. The earth did not rotate a different number of degrees as seen from S'. So t'=t in the Galilean transformation equations.
But scientists say that they have a different time on a clock in S' than appears on a clock in S during the time S' travels a distance of vt. So I proposed using two sets of Galilean transformation equations, one for the time of the clock in S and one for the time of the clock in S'.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
The first set of equations show that the time of the clock in S which shows t is being used in both frames of reference. The second set of equations shows that the time of the clock in S' which shows n' is being used in both frames of reference. The earth rotates the same number of degrees no matter which set of equations is used.
What do you say? No, those are not equations for relativity.
Then Gary Harnagel says that the equations are wrong because they use n'. They can only be right if t and t' are in the same equation. Well, they can be in the same equation if c=186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t-vt/c
x = x' - v't'
y = y'
z = z'
t = t' - v't'/c
So I have answered every objection that has been proposed except one: There is no length contraction.
That is correct. The Galilean transformation equations do not show a length contraction. Neither do you. All you do is say that a length contraction exists. So that is why I say you would probably be happier if you were talking to other people who believe in a length contraction. The Galilean transformation equations depict reality, not the world of Harry Potter, however much you may have enjoyed that series of stories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6c6f83f-2d47-4556-8e56-6263bc00bbdf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470869 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-6, Barfy Bob Winn wrote: > > [Dishonest regurgitation deleted] > > What do you say? No, those are not equations for relativity. > Then Gary Harnagel says that the equations are wrong because they use > n'. They can only be right if t and t' are in the same equation. Well, > they can be in the same equation if c=186,000 miles per second in both > frames of reference. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t-vt/c > > x = x' - v't' > y = y' > z = z' > t = t' - v't'/c So what? The criterion is that the equations must describe reality but these equations do not. They predict a LARGER time dilation than what is observed, but fatally they do not predict that v' = -v, rather they predict v' = -v*(1 - v/c). Hence they disagree with reality witch requires that v' = -v. > So I have answered every objection that has been proposed except one: > There is no length contraction. That is correct. The Galilean > transformation equations do not show a length contraction. Neither do > you. All you do is say that a length contraction exists. Dead wrong, Barfy Bob. The LT says length contraction exists. And your t' = t - v*t/c fails the v' = -v requirement. All of your attempts to make the GT agree with nature is like riding a dead horse. Any sane person would get off that horse, but you will sit there until the sun freezes over. > [More regurgitated barf deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84e7aa2d-1a06-493b-9c88-69118c3e8b2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470894 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-6, Barfy Bob Winn wrote: > > > > [Dishonest regurgitation deleted] > > > > What do you say? No, those are not equations for relativity. > > Then Gary Harnagel says that the equations are wrong because they use > > n'. They can only be right if t and t' are in the same equation. Well, > > they can be in the same equation if c=186,000 miles per second in both > > frames of reference. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t-vt/c > > > > x = x' - v't' > > y = y' > > z = z' > > t = t' - v't'/c > > So what? The criterion is that the equations must describe reality > but these equations do not. They predict a LARGER time dilation than > what is observed, but fatally they do not predict that v' = -v, rather > they predict v' = -v*(1 - v/c). Hence they disagree with reality > witch requires that v' = -v. They don't show time dilation. They show two clocks with different rates. The speeds are the same counted by different rates of time. > > > So I have answered every objection that has been proposed except one: > > There is no length contraction. That is correct. The Galilean > > transformation equations do not show a length contraction. Neither do > > you. All you do is say that a length contraction exists. > > Dead wrong, Barfy Bob. The LT says length contraction exists. And your > t' = t - v*t/c fails the v' = -v requirement. All of your attempts to > make the GT agree with nature is like riding a dead horse. Any sane > person would get off that horse, but you will sit there until the sun > freezes over. Well, good to see you doing something again, Gary. What you fail to see is that a t' second is not the same as a t second. The rate of transitions of cesium atoms is not the same. That can be proven by comparing the two clocks after time t has passed. v' is really the same speed as v. What is different is the number of seconds indicated by a clock showing t' as compared with a clock showing t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6b276a4-1118-41ed-9ea3-e6750db28abc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470901 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-6, Barfy Bob Winn wrote: > > > > > > [Dishonest regurgitation deleted] > > > > > > What do you say? No, those are not equations for relativity. > > > Then Gary Harnagel says that the equations are wrong because they use > > > n'. They can only be right if t and t' are in the same equation. Well, > > > they can be in the same equation if c=186,000 miles per second in both > > > frames of reference. > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t'=t-vt/c > > > > > > x = x' - v't' > > > y = y' > > > z = z' > > > t = t' - v't'/c > > > > So what? The criterion is that the equations must describe reality > > but these equations do not. They predict a LARGER time dilation than > > what is observed, but fatally they do not predict that v' = -v, rather > > they predict v' = -v*(1 - v/c). Hence they disagree with reality > > witch requires that v' = -v. > > They don't show time dilation. Yes, they do. Are you an ignoramus or a liar? > They show two clocks with different rates. And just what the heck do you believe time dilation is? One clock showing two different rates? Or one being an ideal clock and the other being your stupid broken Walgreen's clock? Get a brain! > The speeds are the same counted by different rates of time. Dead wrong! Are you an ignoramus or a liar? > > > So I have answered every objection that has been proposed except one: > > > There is no length contraction. That is correct. The Galilean > > > transformation equations do not show a length contraction. Neither do > > > you. All you do is say that a length contraction exists. > > > > Dead wrong, Barfy Bob. The LT says length contraction exists. And your > > t' = t - v*t/c fails the v' = -v requirement. All of your attempts to > > make the GT agree with nature is like riding a dead horse. Any sane > > person would get off that horse, but you will sit there until the sun > > freezes over. > > Well, good to see you doing something again, Gary. What you fail to see is > that a t' second is not the same as a t second. So you ARE a liar. I see that more plainly than you do. I know that a moving clock APPEARS to run slow from the perspective of a stationary observer. Your babbling claim is so sloppy it isn't even right. > The rate of transitions of cesium atoms is not the same. They APPEAR to not be the same, Sloppy. > That can be proven by comparing the two clocks after time t has passed. That result common knowledge, but it doesn't mean what you claim. > v' is really the same speed as v. No, it's not, mathematically-incompetent barfer. I worked it out mathematically (which YOU are incapable of) and it is v' = v*(1 - v/c). > What is different is the number of seconds indicated by a clock showing t' > as compared with a clock showing t. More stupid sloppy claims. The moving clock shows t' AS VIEWED FROM THE STATIONARY FRAME. It is irrational to claim that it is ACTUALLY running at a different rate for an observer standing right beside it. This is OBVIOUS when considering a third observer moving at v2 wrt the S'. That worthy would observe that clock running at (1 - v2/c) instead of (1 - v/c). So please explain how a clock can run at two different rates at the same time? DUH! Only an ignorant fool or a liar would claim that it could.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 17:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06f98eef-8888-4283-a552-f6bf7c300ad9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470905 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:06:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-6, Barfy Bob Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > [Dishonest regurgitation deleted] > > > > > > > > What do you say? No, those are not equations for relativity. > > > > Then Gary Harnagel says that the equations are wrong because they use > > > > n'. They can only be right if t and t' are in the same equation. Well, > > > > they can be in the same equation if c=186,000 miles per second in both > > > > frames of reference. > > > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > > > y'=y > > > > z'=z > > > > t'=t-vt/c > > > > > > > > x = x' - v't' > > > > y = y' > > > > z = z' > > > > t = t' - v't'/c > > > > > > So what? The criterion is that the equations must describe reality > > > but these equations do not. They predict a LARGER time dilation than > > > what is observed, but fatally they do not predict that v' = -v, rather > > > they predict v' = -v*(1 - v/c). Hence they disagree with reality > > > witch requires that v' = -v. > > > > They don't show time dilation. > > Yes, they do. Are you an ignoramus or a liar? > > > They show two clocks with different rates. > > And just what the heck do you believe time dilation is? One clock > showing two different rates? Or one being an ideal clock and the other > being your stupid broken Walgreen's clock? Get a brain! I have no idea what time dilation is supposed to be. All I am doing is keeping track of two frames of reference, S and S', and the times of clocks in each frame of reference. Some of these nice scientists might be able to tell you what time dilation is. > > The speeds are the same counted by different rates of time. > > Dead wrong! Are you an ignoramus or a liar? You made the accusation. Why don't you decide? > > > > > So I have answered every objection that has been proposed except one: > > > > There is no length contraction. That is correct. The Galilean > > > > transformation equations do not show a length contraction. Neither do > > > > you. All you do is say that a length contraction exists. > > > > > > Dead wrong, Barfy Bob. The LT says length contraction exists. And your > > > t' = t - v*t/c fails the v' = -v requirement. All of your attempts to > > > make the GT agree with nature is like riding a dead horse. Any sane > > > person would get off that horse, but you will sit there until the sun > > > freezes over. > > > > Well, good to see you doing something again, Gary. What you fail to see is > > that a t' second is not the same as a t second. > > So you ARE a liar. I see that more plainly than you do. I know that > a moving clock APPEARS to run slow from the perspective of a stationary > observer. Your babbling claim is so sloppy it isn't even right. > The Galilean transformation equations show that the moving clock is actually slower. > > The rate of transitions of cesium atoms is not the same. > > They APPEAR to not be the same, Sloppy. Well, OK, so Hafele and Keating do an experiment, and after the experiment, they put one clock beside the other, and the clock that was on the airplane APPEARS to have a different time than the other clock. Or NASA launches a satellite and a clock in the satellite APPEARS to be faster than an identical clock on the ground. The scientists APPEAR to adjust the time of the satellite clock to match the time of the ground clock. We don't want to be sloppy about this. > > That can be proven by comparing the two clocks after time t has passed. > > That result common knowledge, but it doesn't mean what you claim. > > > v' is really the same speed as v. > > No, it's not, mathematically-incompetent barfer. I worked it out > mathematically (which YOU are incapable of) and it is v' = v*(1 - v/c). No, sorry. You appear to have studied mathematics at the same place Einstein did. v' = -vt/t' Then, as you can see, if t'=t, then v'=-v, but if t' does not equal t, then v' and v are two different values. > > > What is different is the number of seconds indicated by a clock showing t' > > as compared with a clock showing t. > > More stupid sloppy claims. The moving clock shows t' AS VIEWED FROM THE > STATIONARY FRAME. It is irrational to claim that it is ACTUALLY running > at a different rate for an observer standing right beside it. This is > OBVIOUS when considering a third observer moving at v2 wrt the S'. That > worthy would observe that clock running at (1 - v2/c) instead of (1 - v/c). > So please explain how a clock can run at two different rates at the same > time? DUH! Only an ignorant fool or a liar would claim that it could. Calm down Gary. Maybe you should go back to deleting equations instead of trying to talk about them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 20:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f52165ef-38f9-4ce1-b14a-cbd700fc5539@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470911 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:41:30 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:06:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > They don't show time dilation. > > > > Yes, they do. Are you an ignoramus or a liar? > > > > > They show two clocks with different rates. > > > > And just what the heck do you believe time dilation is? One clock > > showing two different rates? Or one being an ideal clock and the other > > being your stupid broken Walgreen's clock? Get a brain! > > I have no idea what time dilation is supposed to be. Then why are you asserting things about time dilation? Liar! > [More blathering] > > > > The speeds are the same counted by different rates of time. > > > > Dead wrong! Are you an ignoramus or a liar? > > You made the accusation. Why don't you decide? Okay: you are both. > > > Well, good to see you doing something again, Gary. What you fail to > > > see is that a t' second is not the same as a t second. > > > > So you ARE a liar. I see that more plainly than you do. I know that > > a moving clock APPEARS to run slow from the perspective of a stationary > > observer. Your babbling claim is so sloppy it isn't even right. > > The Galilean transformation equations show that the moving clock is > actually slower. No, it doesn't. The GT says t' = t. You are lying again. > > > The rate of transitions of cesium atoms is not the same. > > > > They APPEAR to not be the same, Sloppy. > > Well, OK, so Hafele and Keating do an experiment, and after the experiment, > they put one clock beside the other, and the clock that was on the airplane > APPEARS to have a different time than the other clock. Or NASA launches a > satellite and a clock in the satellite APPEARS to be faster than an > identical clock on the ground. Yup. > The scientists APPEAR to adjust the time of the satellite clock And now you're lying again. Why do you insist on being SO dishonest? > to match the time of the ground clock. We don't want to be sloppy about > this. You were being WORSE than sloppy, liar. > > > That can be proven by comparing the two clocks after time t has passed. > > > > That result common knowledge, but it doesn't mean what you claim. > > > > > v' is really the same speed as v. > > > > No, it's not, mathematically-incompetent barfer. I worked it out > > mathematically (which YOU are incapable of) and it is v' = v*(1 - v/c). > > No, sorry. YES, stupid lying weasel. > You appear to have studied mathematics at the same place Einstein did. Why do you insist on being SO dishonest? > v' = -vt/t' Which means v and v' don't have the same speeds since t' |= t. > Then, as you can see, if t'=t, Which is refuted by experiment. > then v'=-v, but if t' does not equal t, then v' and v are two different > values. Which of course, invalidates the GT and your bastardized transform. > > > What is different is the number of seconds indicated by a clock > > > showing t' as compared with a clock showing t. > > > > More stupid sloppy claims. The moving clock shows t' AS VIEWED FROM > > THE STATIONARY FRAME. It is irrational to claim that it is ACTUALLY > > running at a different rate for an observer standing right beside it. > > This is OBVIOUS when considering a third observer moving at v2 wrt the > > S'. That worthy would observe that clock running at (1 - v2/c) instead > > of (1 - v/c). So please explain how a clock can run at two different > > rates at the same time? DUH! Only an ignorant fool or a liar would > > claim that it could. > > Calm down Gary. Maybe you should go back to deleting equations instead > of trying to talk about them. Deflection is dishonesty. So you REFUSE to explain how a clock can run at two different rates at the same time. What you SHOULD do is admit defeat like an honest person would. “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43d33df5-a83c-4cea-89bc-b8b209e43fd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470930 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 8:51:58 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:41:30 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:06:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They don't show time dilation.
> > >
> > > Yes, they do. Are you an ignoramus or a liar?
> > >
> > > > They show two clocks with different rates.
> > >
> > > And just what the heck do you believe time dilation is? One clock
> > > showing two different rates? Or one being an ideal clock and the other
> > > being your stupid broken Walgreen's clock? Get a brain!
> >
> > I have no idea what time dilation is supposed to be.
>
> Then why are you asserting things about time dilation? Liar!
>
> > [More blathering]
> >
> > > > The speeds are the same counted by different rates of time.
> > >
> > > Dead wrong! Are you an ignoramus or a liar?
> >
> > You made the accusation. Why don't you decide?
>
> Okay: you are both.
>
> > > > Well, good to see you doing something again, Gary. What you fail to
> > > > see is that a t' second is not the same as a t second.
> > >
> > > So you ARE a liar. I see that more plainly than you do. I know that
> > > a moving clock APPEARS to run slow from the perspective of a stationary
> > > observer. Your babbling claim is so sloppy it isn't even right.
> >
> > The Galilean transformation equations show that the moving clock is
> > actually slower.
>
> No, it doesn't. The GT says t' = t. You are lying again.
>
> > > > The rate of transitions of cesium atoms is not the same.
> > >
> > > They APPEAR to not be the same, Sloppy.
> >
> > Well, OK, so Hafele and Keating do an experiment, and after the experiment,
> > they put one clock beside the other, and the clock that was on the airplane
> > APPEARS to have a different time than the other clock. Or NASA launches a
> > satellite and a clock in the satellite APPEARS to be faster than an
> > identical clock on the ground.
>
> Yup.
>
> > The scientists APPEAR to adjust the time of the satellite clock
>
> And now you're lying again. Why do you insist on being SO dishonest?
>
> > to match the time of the ground clock. We don't want to be sloppy about
> > this.
>
> You were being WORSE than sloppy, liar.
>
> > > > That can be proven by comparing the two clocks after time t has passed.
> > >
> > > That result common knowledge, but it doesn't mean what you claim.
> > >
> > > > v' is really the same speed as v.
> > >
> > > No, it's not, mathematically-incompetent barfer. I worked it out
> > > mathematically (which YOU are incapable of) and it is v' = v*(1 - v/c).
> >
> > No, sorry.
>
> YES, stupid lying weasel.
>
> > You appear to have studied mathematics at the same place Einstein did.
>
> Why do you insist on being SO dishonest?
>
> > v' = -vt/t'
>
> Which means v and v' don't have the same speeds since t' |= t.
>
> > Then, as you can see, if t'=t,
>
> Which is refuted by experiment.
>
> > then v'=-v, but if t' does not equal t, then v' and v are two different
> > values.
>
> Which of course, invalidates the GT and your bastardized transform.
It does not invalidate anything. A slower clock has physical characteristics. If it has hands, the hands are at particular positions. If it has a digital display, there is a particular number on the clock. If t and t' are not equal, then v and v' will not be equal because speed is distance divided by time. So scientists say, We want two different times to result in the same speed, and make up the Lorentz equations to accomplish that purpose. Then they imagine a Harry Potter world of length contractions. But anyone can see that a clock has one time for any position it occupies, not two. If there is a clock at x'=0 that is at x, then it only shows one time. Sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you.
>
> > > > What is different is the number of seconds indicated by a clock
> > > > showing t' as compared with a clock showing t.
> > >
> > > More stupid sloppy claims. The moving clock shows t' AS VIEWED FROM
> > > THE STATIONARY FRAME. It is irrational to claim that it is ACTUALLY
> > > running at a different rate for an observer standing right beside it.
> > > This is OBVIOUS when considering a third observer moving at v2 wrt the
> > > S'. That worthy would observe that clock running at (1 - v2/c) instead
> > > of (1 - v/c). So please explain how a clock can run at two different
> > > rates at the same time? DUH! Only an ignorant fool or a liar would
> > > claim that it could.
> >
You are talking about hallucinations again. The clock only has one time for any position it occupies.
> > Calm down Gary. Maybe you should go back to deleting equations instead
> > of trying to talk about them.
>
> Deflection is dishonesty. So you REFUSE to explain how a clock can run
> at two different rates at the same time. What you SHOULD do is admit
> defeat like an honest person would.
>
I am not the one who said a clock has two different rates. You were. I said two different clocks had different rates.
> “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
> proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
> to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
Well, so are you going to go on being wrong? I think you will. Here are some equations to delete after you make your decision.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66ed0c79-4003-48a3-91c5-5cb0466ee20b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470964 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:49:30 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 8:51:58 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:41:30 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > I have no idea what time dilation is supposed to be. > > > > Then why are you asserting things about time dilation? Liar! > > > > > [More blathering] > > > > > > You made the accusation. Why don't you decide? > > > > Okay: you are both. > > > > > The Galilean transformation equations show that the moving clock is > > > actually slower. > > > > No, it doesn't. The GT says t' = t. You are lying again. > > > > > Well, OK, so Hafele and Keating do an experiment, and after the > > > experiment, they put one clock beside the other, and the clock that > > > was on the airplane APPEARS to have a different time than the other > > > clock. Or NASA launches a satellite and a clock in the satellite > > > APPEARS to be faster than an identical clock on the ground. > > > > Yup. > > > > > The scientists APPEAR to adjust the time of the satellite clock > > > > And now you're lying again. Why do you insist on being SO dishonest? > > > > > to match the time of the ground clock. We don't want to be sloppy about > > > this. > > > > You were being WORSE than sloppy, liar. > > > > > > > That can be proven by comparing the two clocks after time t has passed. > > > > > > > > That result common knowledge, but it doesn't mean what you claim. > > > > > > > > > v' is really the same speed as v. > > > > > > > > No, it's not, mathematically-incompetent barfer. I worked it out > > > > mathematically (which YOU are incapable of) and it is > > > > v' = v*(1 - v/c). > > > > > > No, sorry. > > > > YES, stupid lying weasel. > > > > > You appear to have studied mathematics at the same place Einstein did. > > > > Why do you insist on being SO dishonest? > > > > > v' = -vt/t' > > > > Which means v and v' don't have the same speeds since t' |= t. > > > > > Then, as you can see, if t'=t, > > > > Which is refuted by experiment. > > > > > then v'=-v, but if t' does not equal t, then v' and v are two different > > > values. > > > > Which of course, invalidates the GT and your bastardized transform. > > It does not invalidate anything. Desperately dishonest vacuum-head, a premise of the GT is that t' = t. If t' |= t then there is no valid GT. > A slower clock has physical characteristics. If it has hands, No, it doesn't. It has a cesium beam and electronic components. > the hands are at particular positions. If it has a digital display, there > is a particular number on the clock. If t and t' are not equal, then v and > v' will not be equal because speed is distance divided by time. Yep, fatally-flawed vacuum-head, that would be the case EXCEPT that the distance is contracted, as predicted by the LT. Just one more nail in the coffin for your imbecilic claims. > So scientists say, We want two different times to result in the same speed, > and make up the Lorentz equations to accomplish that purpose. No, lying weasel. The fact that c' = c automatically assures that happens. > Then they imagine a Harry Potter world of length contractions. But anyone > can see that a clock has one time for any position it occupies, not two. Exactly. > If there is a clock at x'=0 that is at x, then it only shows one time. > Sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you. I know this, you you seem to be blithefully ignorant of it. > > > > > What is different is the number of seconds indicated by a clock > > > > > showing t' as compared with a clock showing t. > > > > > > > > More stupid sloppy claims. The moving clock shows t' AS VIEWED FROM > > > > THE STATIONARY FRAME. It is irrational to claim that it is ACTUALLY > > > > running at a different rate for an observer standing right beside it. > > > > This is OBVIOUS when considering a third observer moving at v2 wrt the > > > > S'. That worthy would observe that clock running at (1 - v2/c) > > > > instead of (1 - v/c). So please explain how a clock can run at two > > > > different rates at the same time? DUH! Only an ignorant fool or a > > > > liar would claim that it could. > > You are talking about hallucinations again. They are YOUR hallucinations, mentally-incompetent one. > The clock only has one time for any position it occupies. I'm SO glad you agree. So please stop saying an ideal clock runs slow. > > > Calm down Gary. Maybe you should go back to deleting equations instead > > > of trying to talk about them. > > > > Deflection is dishonesty. So you REFUSE to explain how a clock can run > > at two different rates at the same time. What you SHOULD do is admit > > defeat like an honest person would. > > I am not the one who said a clock has two different rates. You were. Neither am I, illiterate one. > I said two different clocks had different rates. But ideal clocks always have one actual rate, yet when they are moving they APPEAR to run slow. YOU are the bozo-brain that asserts they ACTUALLY run slow when they move. This is imbecilic when you OUGHT to know that they are stationary to an observer moving with them and he says they AREN'T running slow. Hence YOU are the imbecile claiming they run at two different rates at the same time. Get a Brain! > > “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are > > proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides > > to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami > > Well, so are you going to go on being wrong? I'm not the one lying and making false claims, liar. > I think you will. Here are some equations to delete after you make your > decision. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t More dishonest deflection and yammering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb3c9b2e-4c56-4bef-a4a4-598e933c65c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470970 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:41:14 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:49:30 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 8:51:58 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:41:30 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea what time dilation is supposed to be.
> > >
> > > Then why are you asserting things about time dilation? Liar!
> > >
> > > > [More blathering]
> > > >
> > > > You made the accusation. Why don't you decide?
> > >
> > > Okay: you are both.
> > >
> > > > The Galilean transformation equations show that the moving clock is
> > > > actually slower.
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't. The GT says t' = t. You are lying again.
> > >
> > > > Well, OK, so Hafele and Keating do an experiment, and after the
> > > > experiment, they put one clock beside the other, and the clock that
> > > > was on the airplane APPEARS to have a different time than the other
> > > > clock. Or NASA launches a satellite and a clock in the satellite
> > > > APPEARS to be faster than an identical clock on the ground.
> > >
> > > Yup.
> > >
> > > > The scientists APPEAR to adjust the time of the satellite clock
> > >
> > > And now you're lying again. Why do you insist on being SO dishonest?
> > >
> > > > to match the time of the ground clock. We don't want to be sloppy about
> > > > this.
> > >
> > > You were being WORSE than sloppy, liar.
> > >
> > > > > > That can be proven by comparing the two clocks after time t has passed.
> > > > >
> > > > > That result common knowledge, but it doesn't mean what you claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > > v' is really the same speed as v.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it's not, mathematically-incompetent barfer. I worked it out
> > > > > mathematically (which YOU are incapable of) and it is
> > > > > v' = v*(1 - v/c).
> > > >
> > > > No, sorry.
> > >
> > > YES, stupid lying weasel.
> > >
> > > > You appear to have studied mathematics at the same place Einstein did.
> > >
> > > Why do you insist on being SO dishonest?
> > >
> > > > v' = -vt/t'
> > >
> > > Which means v and v' don't have the same speeds since t' |= t.
> > >
> > > > Then, as you can see, if t'=t,
> > >
> > > Which is refuted by experiment.
> > >
> > > > then v'=-v, but if t' does not equal t, then v' and v are two different
> > > > values.
> > >
> > > Which of course, invalidates the GT and your bastardized transform.
> >
> > It does not invalidate anything.
>
> Desperately dishonest vacuum-head, a premise of the GT is that t' = t.
> If t' |= t then there is no valid GT.
>
> > A slower clock has physical characteristics. If it has hands,
>
> No, it doesn't. It has a cesium beam and electronic components.
I have a clock that has hands. In your sheltered existence you may never have seen a clock like that.
> > the hands are at particular positions. If it has a digital display, there
> > is a particular number on the clock. If t and t' are not equal, then v and
> > v' will not be equal because speed is distance divided by time.
>
> Yep, fatally-flawed vacuum-head, that would be the case EXCEPT that the
> distance is contracted, as predicted by the LT. Just one more nail in
> the coffin for your imbecilic claims.
Well, see, this is a discussion about the Galilean transformation equations, which are the correct equations for relativity. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. Let me explain to you how the Galilean transformation equations work.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x is a coordinate on the x axis of frame of reference S. S' is a frame of reference in motion relative to x with a velocity of v. If the origins of S and S' coincide when the time t=0, then after a time of t has passed, S' has moved a distance of vt, and the origin of S' is a distance of vt from the origin of S. So now we just take the first of the above equations and move the vt to the other side of the equation.
x'+vt = x
x' is the point on the x' axis of S' that is at x. As you can see, the above equation is correct. x does equal x' plus vt. As you can see, there is no length contraction. This is the correct way to represent times and distances in relativity.
A time of t has elapsed in both frames of reference. In other words, the earth has rotated the same number of degrees whether you measure the rotation of the earth from S or from S'. t'=t
There is nothing complicated about any of this. Children in grade school can understand it.
> > So scientists say, We want two different times to result in the same speed,
> > and make up the Lorentz equations to accomplish that purpose.
>
> No, lying weasel. The fact that c' = c automatically assures that happens.
Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t-vt/c
x = x' - v't'
y = y'
z = z'
t = t - v't/c
We can do this as many times as you choose to come here and delete these equations.
> > Then they imagine a Harry Potter world of length contractions. But anyone
> > can see that a clock has one time for any position it occupies, not two.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > If there is a clock at x'=0 that is at x, then it only shows one time.
> > Sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you.
>
> I know this, you you seem to be blithefully ignorant of it.
There is no way to interpret the equations I use any other way.
>
> > > > > > What is different is the number of seconds indicated by a clock
> > > > > > showing t' as compared with a clock showing t.
> > > > >
> > > > > More stupid sloppy claims. The moving clock shows t' AS VIEWED FROM
> > > > > THE STATIONARY FRAME. It is irrational to claim that it is ACTUALLY
> > > > > running at a different rate for an observer standing right beside it.
> > > > > This is OBVIOUS when considering a third observer moving at v2 wrt the
> > > > > S'. That worthy would observe that clock running at (1 - v2/c)
> > > > > instead of (1 - v/c). So please explain how a clock can run at two
> > > > > different rates at the same time? DUH! Only an ignorant fool or a
> > > > > liar would claim that it could.
> >
> > You are talking about hallucinations again.
>
> They are YOUR hallucinations, mentally-incompetent one.
>
> > The clock only has one time for any position it occupies.
>
> I'm SO glad you agree. So please stop saying an ideal clock runs slow.
If scientists compare one clock to another and they show that different amounts of time have expired, then one clock was slower than the other. That is just a fact.
>
> > > > Calm down Gary. Maybe you should go back to deleting equations instead
> > > > of trying to talk about them.
> > >
> > > Deflection is dishonesty. So you REFUSE to explain how a clock can run
> > > at two different rates at the same time. What you SHOULD do is admit
> > > defeat like an honest person would.
> >
> > I am not the one who said a clock has two different rates. You were.
>
> Neither am I, illiterate one.
>
> > I said two different clocks had different rates.
>
> But ideal clocks always have one actual rate, yet when they are moving
> they APPEAR to run slow. YOU are the bozo-brain that asserts they ACTUALLY
> run slow when they move. This is imbecilic when you OUGHT to know that
> they are stationary to an observer moving with them and he says they AREN'T
> running slow. Hence YOU are the imbecile claiming they run at two different
> rates at the same time. Get a Brain!
Scientists said one clock was slower than the other when they compared the times of the two clocks and one showed less time than the other.
>
> > > “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
> > > proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
> > > to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
> >
> > Well, so are you going to go on being wrong?
>
> I'm not the one lying and making false claims, liar.
>
> > I think you will. Here are some equations to delete after you make your
> > decision.
> >
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
>
> More dishonest deflection and yammering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 18:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b93fe7f$0$15111$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #470979 |
Robert Winn wrote: ... > Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t-vt/c > > x = x' - v't' > y = y' > z = z' > t = t - v't/c It doesn't work for a light ray with equations of motion x = 0, y = ct, z = 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c56124b8-6aea-4514-8448-7272d719f88c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470980 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:53:21 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > ... > > Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t-vt/c > > > > x = x' - v't' > > y = y' > > z = z' > > t = t'- v't/c > > It doesn't work for a light ray with equations of motion > x = 0, y = ct, z = 0. That is correct because that light ray has a negative component as seen from S'. The above equations only apply to a light ray emitted in the +x direction from the origins of S and S' when the origins coincide.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 05:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b9491c2$0$15101$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #470986 |
Le 08/09/2018 à 19:19, Robert Winn a écrit : > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:53:21 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Robert Winn wrote: >> ... >>> Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. >>> >>> x'=x-vt >>> y'=y >>> z'=z >>> t'=t-vt/c >>> >>> x = x' - v't' >>> y = y' >>> z = z' >>> t = t'- v't/c >> >> It doesn't work for a light ray with equations of motion >> x = 0, y = ct, z = 0. > > > That is correct because that light ray has a negative component as seen from S'. The above equations only apply to a light ray emitted in the +x direction from the origins of S and S' when the origins coincide. Then they are wrong. Invariance of light speed is true whatever direction you consider. Not only you've just admitted that your statement "if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference" is not satisfied by YOUR equations, moreover the fact you've stated has been verified independently of the choice of direction, so you own equation are refuted by experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 23:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fb16110-880d-429b-8073-d4c1735cb7dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471096 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:21:40 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Le 08/09/2018 à 19:19, Robert Winn a écrit : > > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:53:21 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >> Robert Winn wrote: > >> ... > >>> Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. > >>> > >>> x'=x-vt > >>> y'=y > >>> z'=z > >>> t'=t-vt/c > >>> > >>> x = x' - v't' > >>> y = y' > >>> z = z' > >>> t = t'- v't/c > >> > >> It doesn't work for a light ray with equations of motion > >> x = 0, y = ct, z = 0. > > > > > > That is correct because that light ray has a negative component as seen from S'. The above equations only apply to a light ray emitted in the +x direction from the origins of S and S' when the origins coincide. > > Then they are wrong. Invariance of light speed is true whatever > direction you consider. > > Not only you've just admitted that your statement "if you want c to > equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference" is not > satisfied by YOUR equations, moreover the fact you've stated has > been verified independently of the choice of direction, so you > own equation are refuted by experiment. Well, if you want to say you have refuted me, you have also refuted the Lorentz equations. The Lorentz equations have the same difficulty. A photon traveling in the -x direction has a velocity of -c = -186,000 miles per second. So you are no longer using Einstein's two little equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. For a photon traveling in the -x direction, you are using x = -ct and x' = -ct'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 10:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b94db83$0$11073$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #471102 |
Mathematically disabled, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:21:40 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Le 08/09/2018 à 19:19, Robert Winn a écrit : >>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:53:21 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>> Robert Winn wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. >>>>> >>>>> x'=x-vt >>>>> y'=y >>>>> z'=z >>>>> t'=t-vt/c >>>>> >>>>> x = x' - v't' >>>>> y = y' >>>>> z = z' >>>>> t = t'- v't/c >>>> >>>> It doesn't work for a light ray with equations of motion >>>> x = 0, y = ct, z = 0. >>> >>> >>> That is correct because that light ray has a negative component as seen from S'. The above equations only apply to a light ray emitted in the +x direction from the origins of S and S' when the origins coincide. >> >> Then they are wrong. Invariance of light speed is true whatever >> direction you consider. >> >> Not only you've just admitted that your statement "if you want c to >> equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of reference" is not >> satisfied by YOUR equations, moreover the fact you've stated has >> been verified independently of the choice of direction, so you >> own equation are refuted by experiment. > > Well, if you want to say you have refuted me, you have also refuted the Lorentz equations. The Lorentz equations have the same difficulty. No Robert. Do the math. With Lorentz Transformation, ALL propagation equations at speed c are transformed into different equation BUT the speed is still c. Notice that you don't have to use, as you do, different transformation equations for different cases (which is utterly idiotic though, showing that you do NOT know what transformation equations MEAN).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn0vjd$3fe$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #470979 |
Robert Winn wrote: > Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of >reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. > t'=t-vt/c > t = t - v't/c That's not the Galilean transform. The Galilean transform has t'=t. We can call that the Winn Transform, or we can just call it wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9347434c-e965-47a2-843c-c7c8f99eae17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470984 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of > >reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. > > > t'=t-vt/c > > > t = t - v't/c > > That's not the Galilean transform. The Galilean transform has t'=t. > > We can call that the Winn Transform, or we can just call it wrong. Go ahead. The only thing it describes is a photon going in the +x direction. Einstein was the one who thought of photons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 05:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b94920b$0$15101$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #471011 |
Idiot jesuit Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Robert Winn wrote: >>> Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of >>> reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. >> >>> t'=t-vt/c >> >>> t = t - v't/c >> >> That's not the Galilean transform. The Galilean transform has t'=t. >> >> We can call that the Winn Transform, or we can just call it wrong. > > Go ahead. The only thing it describes is a photon going in the +x direction. Einstein was the one who thought of photons. You do not understand what transformation equations are about, Mr Winn, you never did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 23:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5db87f46-d13c-4bfe-b511-521abbc17713@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471097 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:22:53 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Idiot jesuit Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Robert Winn wrote: > >>> Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of > >>> reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. > >> > >>> t'=t-vt/c > >> > >>> t = t - v't/c > >> > >> That's not the Galilean transform. The Galilean transform has t'=t. > >> > >> We can call that the Winn Transform, or we can just call it wrong. > > > > Go ahead. The only thing it describes is a photon going in the +x direction. Einstein was the one who thought of photons. > > You do not understand what transformation equations are about, Mr Winn, > you never did. What exactly is it that you think I do not understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b94dc69$0$15498$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #471103 |
Absurd psychopath Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:22:53 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Idiot jesuit Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of >>>>> reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. >>>> >>>>> t'=t-vt/c >>>> >>>>> t = t - v't/c >>>> >>>> That's not the Galilean transform. The Galilean transform has t'=t. >>>> >>>> We can call that the Winn Transform, or we can just call it wrong. >>> >>> Go ahead. The only thing it describes is a photon going in the +x direction. Einstein was the one who thought of photons. >> >> You do not understand what transformation equations are about, Mr Winn, >> you never did. > > What exactly is it that you think I do not understand? Amongst other issues, the fact that a set of transformation equations does not change according to the kind of events you are considering. They are converting events coordinates in a frame into coordinates in another frame, whatever kind of events (light propagation, motion of objects, anything you can label with "at time t, at that place") you may consider they are the same, or they do not make sense at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b920822a-feda-4d4c-8e6b-c3627374c737@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471105 |
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 1:40:10 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Absurd psychopath Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:22:53 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >> Idiot jesuit Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> Well, if you want c to equal 186,000 miles per second in both frames of > >>>>> reference, the Galilean transformation equations can accommodate that. > >>>> > >>>>> t'=t-vt/c > >>>> > >>>>> t = t - v't/c > >>>> > >>>> That's not the Galilean transform. The Galilean transform has t'=t. > >>>> > >>>> We can call that the Winn Transform, or we can just call it wrong. > >>> > >>> Go ahead. The only thing it describes is a photon going in the +x direction. Einstein was the one who thought of photons. > >> > >> You do not understand what transformation equations are about, Mr Winn, > >> you never did. > > > > What exactly is it that you think I do not understand? > > Amongst other issues, the fact that a set of transformation equations > does not change according to the kind of events you are considering. > They are converting events coordinates in a frame into coordinates in > another frame, whatever kind of events (light propagation, motion of > objects, anything you can label with "at time t, at that place") you > may consider they are the same, or they do not make sense at all. Well, they do make sense if there is a preferred frame of reference. The Galilean transformation equations have a preferred frame of reference. For instance, if there is a clock in S that agrees with the rotation of the earth, and a clock in S' that is faster or slower than the rotation of the earth specifies, then the clock that agrees with the rotation of the earth is in a preferred frame of reference. Galileo and Newton used the rotation of the earth as the standard for time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web