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 12 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 50 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 21:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d93ac703-70b2-4fd1-9870-204025b322a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470894 |
On Friday, 7 September 2018 23:47:10 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: > So what? The criterion is that the equations must describe reality > but these equations do not. The reality of poor idiot Gary, with GPS clocks deleted from it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmut6s$15if$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470869 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>> Im like your reflection in a mirror. >>>> >>>> So when you tell me that youd 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. Thats >> 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'. So far so good. Remember how the time coordinates in S and in S’ are defined and measured? Sure you do. > 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. Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. > 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. Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. > You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is > always the same length as x. There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have lungfish. To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on these convincing reasons. > 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 c6,000 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. > > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 15:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <738f03c2-e516-4c51-b7d8-e51f4948e57a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470898 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:04:4 > >>>> > >>> 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'. > > So far so good. Remember how the time coordinates in S and in S’ are > defined and measured? Sure you do. > > > 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. > > Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. No, it is an axiomatically true statement. > > > 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. > > Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. > > You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is > > always the same length as x. > > There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to > experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not > equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation > that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that > shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations > because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that > lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is > observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have > lungfish. OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong because lungfish exist. > To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on > these convincing reasons. > > > 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 00:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmv5n5$1hhh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470902 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:04:4 >>>>>> >>>>> 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'. >> >> So far so good. Remember how the time coordinates in S and in S’ are >> defined and measured? Sure you do. >> >>> 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. >> >> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. > No, it is an axiomatically true statement. There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow. >> >>> 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. >> >> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. > I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work here. > >>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is >>> always the same length as x. >> >> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to >> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not >> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation >> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that >> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations >> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that >> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is >> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have >> lungfish. > OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong > because lungfish exist. Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean transforms are wrong. > >> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on >> these convincing reasons. >> As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t understand science or the role of math in it. Back to my jig in a few minutes. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 17:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27b80e6e-21cf-4d80-94eb-87d6c8ff3423@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470909 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 5:39:05 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:04:4 > >>>>>> > >>>>> 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'. > >> > >> So far so good. Remember how the time coordinates in S and in S’ are > >> defined and measured? Sure you do. > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. > > No, it is an axiomatically true statement. > > There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow. > > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. > > I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. > > You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the > Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their > observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work > here. I was very precise. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. > > > >>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is > >>> always the same length as x. > >> > >> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to > >> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not > >> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation > >> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that > >> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations > >> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that > >> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is > >> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have > >> lungfish. > > OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong > > because lungfish exist. > > Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean > transforms are wrong. > Well, see I did not know. And here I have been saying x'=x-vt all my life. And all that time there actually were lungfish. > >> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on > >> these convincing reasons. > >> > > As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to > experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t > understand science or the role of math in it. > > Back to my jig in a few minutes. > Oh, look, the CIA agent is pretending that he has a woodworking shop. You can't believe these Deep State people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 01:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmv8gf$1lai$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470912 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 5:39:05 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:04:4 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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'. >>>> >>>> So far so good. Remember how the time coordinates in S and in S’ are >>>> defined and measured? Sure you do. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. >>> No, it is an axiomatically true statement. >> >> There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow. See? Tough to swallow I know. >> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. >>> I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. >> >> You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the >> Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their >> observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work >> here. > > I was very precise. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a > length contraction. Not in your observational measurements. You may be confused about what observational measurements are. They do not involve gazing at equations. >>> >>>>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is >>>>> always the same length as x. >>>> >>>> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to >>>> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not >>>> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation >>>> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that >>>> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations >>>> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that >>>> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is >>>> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have >>>> lungfish. >>> OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong >>> because lungfish exist. >> >> Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean >> transforms are wrong. >> > > Well, see I did not know. And here I have been saying x'=x-vt all my life. > And all that time there actually were lungfish. I’d say you were confused in general, given these things you’ve mentioned. Sorry to break it to you. > >>>> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on >>>> these convincing reasons. >>>> >> >> As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to >> experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t >> understand science or the role of math in it. >> >> Back to my jig in a few minutes. >> > > Oh, look, the CIA agent is pretending that he has a woodworking shop. > You can't believe these Deep State people. Ok I will keep an eye on you if that makes you happy > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <554767ab-fca3-4b94-a4bc-129d39ffa6af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470919 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:26:44 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. > >>> No, it is an axiomatically true statement. > >> > >> There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow. > > See? Tough to swallow I know. So you are saying that if something moves a distance of vt, it has moved some other distance. > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. > >>> I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. > >> > >> You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the > >> Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their > >> observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work > >> here. > > > > I was very precise. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a > > length contraction. > > Not in your observational measurements. You may be confused about what > observational measurements are. They do not involve gazing at equations. Well, go ahead and give an example of when it would not be true. > >>> > >>>>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is > >>>>> always the same length as x. > >>>> > >>>> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to > >>>> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not > >>>> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation > >>>> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that > >>>> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations > >>>> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that > >>>> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is > >>>> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have > >>>> lungfish. > >>> OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong > >>> because lungfish exist. > >> > >> Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean > >> transforms are wrong. > >> > > > > Well, see I did not know. And here I have been saying x'=x-vt all my life. > > And all that time there actually were lungfish. > > I’d say you were confused in general, given these things you’ve mentioned. > Sorry to break it to you. > > > > >>>> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on > >>>> these convincing reasons. > >>>> > >> > >> As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to > >> experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t > >> understand science or the role of math in it. > >> > >> Back to my jig in a few minutes. > >> > > > > Oh, look, the CIA agent is pretending that he has a woodworking shop. > > You can't believe these Deep State people. > > Ok I will keep an eye on you if that makes you happy > Well, I am going to be occupied with thinking about lungfish for several days now. If only you had not mentioned lungfish. How could I have been believing that x'=x-vt if there were lungfish?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 13:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn0j4b$1l4u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470922 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:26:44 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. >>>>> No, it is an axiomatically true statement. >>>> >>>> There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow. >> >> See? Tough to swallow I know. > > > So you are saying that if something moves a distance of vt, it has moved > some other distance. > > >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. >>>>> I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. >>>> >>>> You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the >>>> Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their >>>> observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work >>>> here. >>> >>> I was very precise. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a >>> length contraction. >> >> Not in your observational measurements. You may be confused about what >> observational measurements are. They do not involve gazing at equations. > > Well, go ahead and give an example of when it would not be true. I already have. You told me you decided not to look at it. Remember? > >>>>> >>>>>>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is >>>>>>> always the same length as x. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to >>>>>> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not >>>>>> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation >>>>>> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that >>>>>> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations >>>>>> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that >>>>>> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is >>>>>> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have >>>>>> lungfish. >>>>> OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong >>>>> because lungfish exist. >>>> >>>> Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean >>>> transforms are wrong. >>>> >>> >>> Well, see I did not know. And here I have been saying x'=x-vt all my life. >>> And all that time there actually were lungfish. >> >> I’d say you were confused in general, given these things you’ve mentioned. >> Sorry to break it to you. >> >>> >>>>>> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on >>>>>> these convincing reasons. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to >>>> experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t >>>> understand science or the role of math in it. >>>> >>>> Back to my jig in a few minutes. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, look, the CIA agent is pretending that he has a woodworking shop. >>> You can't believe these Deep State people. >> >> Ok I will keep an eye on you if that makes you happy >> > Well, I am going to be occupied with thinking about lungfish for several > days now. If only you had not mentioned lungfish. How could I have been > believing that x'=x-vt if there were lungfish? > Well that shows the folly of believing hypothetical equations without checking observations. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c93048da-e145-45e5-acca-ea6cf1a33ce5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470963 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:34:06 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:26:44 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement.
> >>>>> No, it is an axiomatically true statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow.
> >>
> >> See? Tough to swallow I know.
> >
> >
> > So you are saying that if something moves a distance of vt, it has moved
> > some other distance.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis.
> >>>>> I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the
> >>>> Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their
> >>>> observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work
> >>>> here.
> >>>
> >>> I was very precise. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a
> >>> length contraction.
> >>
> >> Not in your observational measurements. You may be confused about what
> >> observational measurements are. They do not involve gazing at equations.
> >
> > Well, go ahead and give an example of when it would not be true.
>
> I already have. You told me you decided not to look at it. Remember?
>
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is
> >>>>>>> always the same length as x.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to
> >>>>>> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not
> >>>>>> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation
> >>>>>> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that
> >>>>>> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations
> >>>>>> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that
> >>>>>> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is
> >>>>>> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have
> >>>>>> lungfish.
> >>>>> OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong
> >>>>> because lungfish exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean
> >>>> transforms are wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, see I did not know. And here I have been saying x'=x-vt all my life.
> >>> And all that time there actually were lungfish.
> >>
> >> I’d say you were confused in general, given these things you’ve mentioned.
> >> Sorry to break it to you.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on
> >>>>>> these convincing reasons.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to
> >>>> experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t
> >>>> understand science or the role of math in it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Back to my jig in a few minutes.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh, look, the CIA agent is pretending that he has a woodworking shop.
> >>> You can't believe these Deep State people.
> >>
> >> Ok I will keep an eye on you if that makes you happy
> >>
> > Well, I am going to be occupied with thinking about lungfish for several
> > days now. If only you had not mentioned lungfish. How could I have been
> > believing that x'=x-vt if there were lungfish?
> >
>
> Well that shows the folly of believing hypothetical equations without
> checking observations.
>
What I post are not hypothetical equations. They are actual equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Go ahead and explain what you think is hypothetical about them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn0p9u$1ura$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470966 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:34:06 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:26:44 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. >>>>>>> No, it is an axiomatically true statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow. >>>> >>>> See? Tough to swallow I know. >>> >>> >>> So you are saying that if something moves a distance of vt, it has moved >>> some other distance. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. >>>>>>> I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the >>>>>> Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their >>>>>> observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work >>>>>> here. >>>>> >>>>> I was very precise. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a >>>>> length contraction. >>>> >>>> Not in your observational measurements. You may be confused about what >>>> observational measurements are. They do not involve gazing at equations. >>> >>> Well, go ahead and give an example of when it would not be true. >> >> I already have. You told me you decided not to look at it. Remember? >> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is >>>>>>>>> always the same length as x. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to >>>>>>>> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not >>>>>>>> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation >>>>>>>> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that >>>>>>>> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations >>>>>>>> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that >>>>>>>> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is >>>>>>>> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have >>>>>>>> lungfish. >>>>>>> OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong >>>>>>> because lungfish exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean >>>>>> transforms are wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, see I did not know. And here I have been saying x'=x-vt all my life. >>>>> And all that time there actually were lungfish. >>>> >>>> I’d say you were confused in general, given these things you’ve mentioned. >>>> Sorry to break it to you. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on >>>>>>>> these convincing reasons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to >>>>>> experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t >>>>>> understand science or the role of math in it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Back to my jig in a few minutes. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, look, the CIA agent is pretending that he has a woodworking shop. >>>>> You can't believe these Deep State people. >>>> >>>> Ok I will keep an eye on you if that makes you happy >>>> >>> Well, I am going to be occupied with thinking about lungfish for several >>> days now. If only you had not mentioned lungfish. How could I have been >>> believing that x'=x-vt if there were lungfish? >>> >> >> Well that shows the folly of believing hypothetical equations without >> checking observations. >> > What I post are not hypothetical equations. They are actual equations. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > > Go ahead and explain what you think is hypothetical about them. > I’ve already told you. They are hypothetical equations. They express a hypothesis to be tested by experimental measurement. They are not axiomatically true. There is no axiom that makes them true. They are hypothetical equations. I realize this is very hard for you to understand and probably a major disappointment. Especially to be told that by your reflection in a mirror. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0beb2b87-4aab-40f6-9aaa-2c93020c3c44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470972 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:19:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:34:06 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:26:44 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. > >>>>>>> No, it is an axiomatically true statement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow. > >>>> > >>>> See? Tough to swallow I know. > >>> > >>> > >>> So you are saying that if something moves a distance of vt, it has moved > >>> some other distance. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. > >>>>>>> I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the > >>>>>> Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their > >>>>>> observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work > >>>>>> here. > >>>>> > >>>>> I was very precise. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a > >>>>> length contraction. > >>>> > >>>> Not in your observational measurements. You may be confused about what > >>>> observational measurements are. They do not involve gazing at equations. > >>> > >>> Well, go ahead and give an example of when it would not be true. > >> > >> I already have. You told me you decided not to look at it. Remember? > >> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is > >>>>>>>>> always the same length as x. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to > >>>>>>>> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not > >>>>>>>> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation > >>>>>>>> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that > >>>>>>>> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations > >>>>>>>> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that > >>>>>>>> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is > >>>>>>>> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have > >>>>>>>> lungfish. > >>>>>>> OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong > >>>>>>> because lungfish exist. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean > >>>>>> transforms are wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, see I did not know. And here I have been saying x'=x-vt all my life. > >>>>> And all that time there actually were lungfish. > >>>> > >>>> I’d say you were confused in general, given these things you’ve mentioned. > >>>> Sorry to break it to you. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on > >>>>>>>> these convincing reasons. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to > >>>>>> experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t > >>>>>> understand science or the role of math in it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Back to my jig in a few minutes. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Oh, look, the CIA agent is pretending that he has a woodworking shop. > >>>>> You can't believe these Deep State people. > >>>> > >>>> Ok I will keep an eye on you if that makes you happy > >>>> > >>> Well, I am going to be occupied with thinking about lungfish for several > >>> days now. If only you had not mentioned lungfish. How could I have been > >>> believing that x'=x-vt if there were lungfish? > >>> > >> > >> Well that shows the folly of believing hypothetical equations without > >> checking observations. > >> > > What I post are not hypothetical equations. They are actual equations. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > > > > Go ahead and explain what you think is hypothetical about them. > > > > I’ve already told you. They are hypothetical equations. They express a > hypothesis to be tested by experimental measurement. They are not > axiomatically true. There is no axiom that makes them true. They are > hypothetical equations. > > I realize this is very hard for you to understand and probably a major > disappointment. Especially to be told that by your reflection in a mirror. > Well, so I conducted an experiment and the equations were true. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you that the Harry Potter books you enjoyed so much were fiction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn104b$9qj$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #470982 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:19:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > Go ahead and explain what you think is hypothetical about them. =20 >> I've already told you. They are hypothetical equations. They express a >> hypothesis to be tested by experimental measurement. They are not >> axiomatically true. There is no axiom that makes them true. They are >> hypothetical equations. >> I realize this is very hard for you to understand and probably a major >> disappointment. Especially to be told that by your reflection in a mirror. >Well, so I conducted an experiment and the equations were true. Really? What was your computed margin of error? What is the confidence rate that the results are due to the equations being true and not due to introduced measurement error? How did you determine that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca61c5f0-b57d-4d79-90c5-f8813b7c4e7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470985 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:15:56 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:19:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> > Go ahead and explain what you think is hypothetical about them. =20 > > >> I've already told you. They are hypothetical equations. They express a > >> hypothesis to be tested by experimental measurement. They are not > >> axiomatically true. There is no axiom that makes them true. They are > >> hypothetical equations. > > >> I realize this is very hard for you to understand and probably a major > >> disappointment. Especially to be told that by your reflection in a mirror. > > >Well, so I conducted an experiment and the equations were true. > > Really? What was your computed margin of error? What is the confidence > rate that the results are due to the equations being true and not due to > introduced measurement error? How did you determine that? Close enough to convince me. You are the one saying the equations are not true. What was the experiment that convinced you? What was its computed margin of error? What was the true confidence rate that the results are due to the equations being true and not due to introduced measurement error? How did you determine that? While you are at it, what about this equation? C=2Pi*R It seems to me that with your concept of relativity, you have all manner of answers for C and R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn120v$dbd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470982 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 8:19:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:34:06 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 6:26:44 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that this is a hypothesis, not an axiomatically true statement. >>>>>>>>> No, it is an axiomatically true statement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no such axiom. I know that is difficult to swallow. >>>>>> >>>>>> See? Tough to swallow I know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you are saying that if something moves a distance of vt, it has moved >>>>> some other distance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, I say it is a testable hypothesis. >>>>>>>>> I just tested it. x=x'-vt You say it is not true, so show when it is not true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have not tested it with the precision needed to distinguish it from the >>>>>>>> Lorentz transform. You simply haven’t. Others have. You won’t look at their >>>>>>>> observational results. This doesn’t work for lungfish and it doesn’t work >>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was very precise. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a >>>>>>> length contraction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not in your observational measurements. You may be confused about what >>>>>> observational measurements are. They do not involve gazing at equations. >>>>> >>>>> Well, go ahead and give an example of when it would not be true. >>>> >>>> I already have. You told me you decided not to look at it. Remember? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are correct in saying that there is no length contraction. x'+vt is >>>>>>>>>>> always the same length as x. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no axiom that says that is true. Instead, it must be put to >>>>>>>>>> experimental test, right? I mean, that’s science. After all, it’s not >>>>>>>>>> equations that tell you whether something exists or not. It’s observation >>>>>>>>>> that determines that, every single time. You can have an equation that >>>>>>>>>> shows no existence of lungfish. And you may decide you like those equations >>>>>>>>>> because you’ve never personally observed a lungfish and don’t believe that >>>>>>>>>> lungfish exist. But what determines whether lungfish exist or not is >>>>>>>>>> observations of lungfish, and never equations that have or don’t have >>>>>>>>>> lungfish. >>>>>>>>> OK, so you are saying the Galilean transformation equations are wrong >>>>>>>>> because lungfish exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because observations have proven both that lungfish exist and that Galilean >>>>>>>> transforms are wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, see I did not know. And here I have been saying x'=x-vt all my life. >>>>>>> And all that time there actually were lungfish. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’d say you were confused in general, given these things you’ve mentioned. >>>>>> Sorry to break it to you. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I’m not going to read the rest until we can come to terms on >>>>>>>>>> these convincing reasons. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I said, if you don’t agree that equations in physics are subject to >>>>>>>> experimental test to determine their validity, then you simply don’t >>>>>>>> understand science or the role of math in it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Back to my jig in a few minutes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, look, the CIA agent is pretending that he has a woodworking shop. >>>>>>> You can't believe these Deep State people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok I will keep an eye on you if that makes you happy >>>>>> >>>>> Well, I am going to be occupied with thinking about lungfish for several >>>>> days now. If only you had not mentioned lungfish. How could I have been >>>>> believing that x'=x-vt if there were lungfish? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well that shows the folly of believing hypothetical equations without >>>> checking observations. >>>> >>> What I post are not hypothetical equations. They are actual equations. >>> >>> x'=x-vt >>> y'=y >>> z'=z >>> t'=t >>> >>> >>> Go ahead and explain what you think is hypothetical about them. >>> >> >> I’ve already told you. They are hypothetical equations. They express a >> hypothesis to be tested by experimental measurement. They are not >> axiomatically true. There is no axiom that makes them true. They are >> hypothetical equations. >> >> I realize this is very hard for you to understand and probably a major >> disappointment. Especially to be told that by your reflection in a mirror. >> > Well, so I conducted an experiment and the equations were true. Sorry to > have to be the one to tell you that the Harry Potter books you enjoyed so > much were fiction. > > They are true within the precision you were able to measure. The Lorentz transforms are also correct to within the precision you are able to measure. You are free to try to show me the precision of your measurement and how your results rule out the Lorentz contraction. At higher precision, the Lorentz transforms are still correct but the hypothetical Galilean transforms are not correct. Measurement clearly shows this. You don’t want to look at those measurements. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 13:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0cd4ceef-543e-4c5f-8cd9-3a41780e1c9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470990 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:48:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> > >> I realize this is very hard for you to understand and probably a major > >> disappointment. Especially to be told that by your reflection in a mirror. > >> > > Well, so I conducted an experiment and the equations were true. Sorry to > > have to be the one to tell you that the Harry Potter books you enjoyed so > > much were fiction. > > > > > > They are true within the precision you were able to measure. The Lorentz > transforms are also correct to within the precision you are able to > measure. You are free to try to show me the precision of your measurement > and how your results rule out the Lorentz contraction. > > At higher precision, the Lorentz transforms are still correct but the > hypothetical Galilean transforms are not correct. Measurement clearly shows > this. You don’t want to look at those measurements. > Go ahead and post the measurements. The Lorentz equations and the Galilean transformation equations cannot both be true, even though they give similar answers at low velocities. They do not say the same thing. If you were to tell me that the Lorentz equations were true for electromagnetic fields, I might believe you because that was what Lorentz was originally describing with them. The Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations to use for describing relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 22:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn1jn0$18ik$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471042 |
Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:48:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I realize this is very hard for you to understand and probably a major >>>> disappointment. Especially to be told that by your reflection in a mirror. >>>> >>> Well, so I conducted an experiment and the equations were true. Sorry to >>> have to be the one to tell you that the Harry Potter books you enjoyed so >>> much were fiction. >>> >>> >> >> They are true within the precision you were able to measure. The Lorentz >> transforms are also correct to within the precision you are able to >> measure. You are free to try to show me the precision of your measurement >> and how your results rule out the Lorentz contraction. >> >> At higher precision, the Lorentz transforms are still correct but the >> hypothetical Galilean transforms are not correct. Measurement clearly shows >> this. You don’t want to look at those measurements. >> > Go ahead and post the measurements. I have. You would rather that I type thousands of words for you here, rather than you moving a mouse and pressing the mouse button on a link. I don’t indulge your laziness or your passive aggressive stance. If you want to see the measurements, then you will click on the link. If you don’t, then you wouldn’t read the result even if you got someone to type thousands of words. So then you would learn nothing and accomplish nothing except wasting someone’s time. > The Lorentz equations and the Galilean transformation equations cannot > both be true, even though they give similar answers at low velocities. So similar in fact that a low precision measurement would not be able to tell the difference. > They do not say the same thing. If you were to tell me that the Lorentz > equations were true for electromagnetic fields, I might believe you > because that was what Lorentz was originally describing with them. Good measurements have shown that the Lorentz transforms are correct, and Galilean transforms are wrong. Galilean transforms are not axiomatically true. They are hypothetical statements, subject to test by precision measurement. Those measurements have been done, though not by you. You have an uninformed opinion about relativity because you don’t know about these measurements. And you are too apathetic in general to turn your uninformed opinion into an informed one. It’s very simple. > The Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations to use > for describing relativity. > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa2ea4fc-1c88-4e2f-8c7c-f62191f6f8a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471085 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:50:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 10:48:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>>> I realize this is very hard for you to understand and probably a major > >>>> disappointment. Especially to be told that by your reflection in a mirror. > >>>> > >>> Well, so I conducted an experiment and the equations were true. Sorry to > >>> have to be the one to tell you that the Harry Potter books you enjoyed so > >>> much were fiction. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> They are true within the precision you were able to measure. The Lorentz > >> transforms are also correct to within the precision you are able to > >> measure. You are free to try to show me the precision of your measurement > >> and how your results rule out the Lorentz contraction. > >> > >> At higher precision, the Lorentz transforms are still correct but the > >> hypothetical Galilean transforms are not correct. Measurement clearly shows > >> this. You don’t want to look at those measurements. > >> > > Go ahead and post the measurements. > > I have. You would rather that I type thousands of words for you here, > rather than you moving a mouse and pressing the mouse button on a link. I > don’t indulge your laziness or your passive aggressive stance. If you want > to see the measurements, then you will click on the link. If you don’t, > then you wouldn’t read the result even if you got someone to type thousands > of words. So then you would learn nothing and accomplish nothing except > wasting someone’s time. > > > The Lorentz equations and the Galilean transformation equations cannot > > both be true, even though they give similar answers at low velocities. > > So similar in fact that a low precision measurement would not be able to > tell the difference. > > > They do not say the same thing. If you were to tell me that the Lorentz > > equations were true for electromagnetic fields, I might believe you > > because that was what Lorentz was originally describing with them. > > Good measurements have shown that the Lorentz transforms are correct, and > Galilean transforms are wrong. Galilean transforms are not axiomatically > true. They are hypothetical statements, subject to test by precision > measurement. Those measurements have been done, though not by you. You have > an uninformed opinion about relativity because you don’t know about these > measurements. And you are too apathetic in general to turn your uninformed > opinion into an informed one. It’s very simple. > > > The Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations to use > > for describing relativity. > > I used to work on radar in the Navy. What I know about radar proves the Lorentz equations wrong as a description of relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 04:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed31b860-579b-4dc9-886b-760e3191d4a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471101 |
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 12:08:33 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > I used to work on radar in the Navy. What I know about radar proves > the Lorentz equations wrong as a description of relativity. So again you prove yourself to be either an ignoramus or a liar, or both. NOTHING you have EVER done refutes the LT (in its proper regime).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 11:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn304l$11sm$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471114 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 12:08:33 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: >> >> I used to work on radar in the Navy. What I know about radar proves >> the Lorentz equations wrong as a description of relativity. > > So again you prove yourself to be either an ignoramus or a liar, or > both. > NOTHING you have EVER done refutes the LT (in its proper regime). You are not going to preach, that the radar bullet goes through a curved spacetime, then returns along same, near his point of emission. Totally unrealistic. No weapon in the world are constructed with relativity in concern.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1a24176-42f6-4fde-be8c-4a0685db19a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471116 |
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:28:25 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoires wrote: > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 12:08:33 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > >> > >> I used to work on radar in the Navy. What I know about radar proves > >> the Lorentz equations wrong as a description of relativity. > > > > So again you prove yourself to be either an ignoramus or a liar, or > > both. > > NOTHING you have EVER done refutes the LT (in its proper regime). > > You are not going to preach, that the radar bullet goes through a curved > spacetime, then returns along same, near his point of emission. Totally > unrealistic. No weapon in the world are constructed with relativity in > concern. Radar is electromagnetic waves, but what is obvious about radar is that it is accurate concerning distances.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web