Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #564308 > unrolled thread

Riedt's Cosmology

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 17:25 -0700
    Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 17:35 -0700
      Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 23:55 -0400
    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 19:46 -0500
      Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 18:18 -0700
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 20:37 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 19:10 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 19:24 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 19:57 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:10 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-24 13:23 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 17:19 -0500
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 06:24 +0100
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 03:06 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 03:19 -0700
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 03:32 -0700
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 03:42 -0700
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:38 -0400
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:41 -0500
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:01 -0700
                    Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:21 -0700
                      Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 14:03 -0400
                    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:54 -0500
                      Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 10:48 -0700
                        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:29 -0500
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:35 -0400
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:28 -0500
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 06:39 -0700
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:47 -0500
    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-22 13:24 +0100
      Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 17:52 -0700
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-23 08:31 +0100
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 00:47 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-23 13:12 +0100
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 05:33 -0700
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 05:48 -0700
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 11:58 -0400
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 17:15 -0700
    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:32 -0500
    Re: Riedt's Cosmology xxein1@att.net - 2016-03-22 16:33 -0700
      Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 21:08 -0500
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 20:08 -0700
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 00:28 -0700
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:00 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:01 -0500
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 06:08 -0700
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:56 -0500
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 07:01 -0700
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:15 -0500
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 11:14 -0500
                    Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 09:26 -0700
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 23:31 -0400
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 00:15 -0700
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 03:34 -0400
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:23 -0500
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 06:26 -0700
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:00 -0500
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:15 -0400
                    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 11:30 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:25 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:27 -0500
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology xxein1@att.net - 2016-03-23 17:18 -0700
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:16 -0500

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#564308 — Riedt's Cosmology

Riedt's Cosmology

I. The big bang

Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?

II. A more likely theory

The universe existed always and evolved in four stages:
From the pre-universe to the proto universe to the visible universe and finally to the biological universe. Five laws governed and continue to govern the process: the law of creation (evolution), the law of maintenance, the law of decay, the law of chaos and the law of order. The pre-universe was occupied by one substance, the aether. It partially changed to matter in the last three stages of the universe and continues to do so.

III.
In the third stage, about 14 billion years ago, large matter aggregations (stars) started to radiate light which was visible to life forms in the fourth stage, the biological universe. Before a star was able to radiate light, it had to be formed over a period of time which may have also been billions of years.

A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the motion of celestial objects by gravity. 
 
IV.
Every star system is a closed system in respect of gravity. The mass of a star determines the total gravitational force which it can generate and apply to all matter within its gravity sphere. In the solar system the energy exerted by the sun to keep the nine planets in orbit can be calculated by the formula E = GM*mpl/(2*dm):

	    GM	            mpl 	         dm	      E=GM*mpl/(2*d)
MER 	1.3271E+20	3.3022E+23	   57,909,231,029	  3.7839E+32
VEN 	1.3271E+20	4.8685E+24	  108,209,525,401	  2.9855E+33
EAR 	1.3271E+20	5.9736E+24	  149,598,319,494	  2.6497E+33
MAR 	1.3271E+20	6.4185E+23	  227,943,771,564	  1.8685E+32
JUP 	1.3271E+20	1.8986E+27	  778,342,761,465	  1.6186E+35
SAT 	1.3271E+20	5.6846E+26	1,426,714,892,866	  2.6439E+34
URA 	1.3271E+20	8.6810E+25	2,870,633,540,862	  2.0067E+33
NEP 	1.3271E+20	1.0243E+26	4,498,393,012,162	  1.5110E+33
PLU 	1.3271E+20	1.2500E+22	5,906,438,090,764	  1.4043E+29
				
			                   Total energy in Joules 1.9802E+35 

Peter Riedt 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#564309

Peter Riedt
Riedt's Cosmology 

I. The big bang 

Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from? 
------------

You start with so many false premises, beginning with 'once upon a time', that's it's no wonder you are confused.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564351

On 03/21/2016 08:35 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Peter Riedt
> Riedt's Cosmology
>
> I. The big bang
>
> Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?
> ------------
>
> You start with so many false premises, beginning with 'once upon a time', that's it's no wonder you are confused.
>
Let HVAC's science education straighten it all out for you.
Just start with who is pregnant or divorcing in Hollywood and I'm sure 
HVAC can explain it all to you.

My BBB theory: Big Bang is Bullshit.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564313

On 3/21/16 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and
> maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the
> motion of celestial objects by gravity.


   I don't think star have those function, Peter.

   The gravity was always there, because the mass was always there. The
   collapsing mass got so hot and the pressure so great that the mass
   ignited and sustained thermonuclear fusion. The star doesn't know
   nothin about life, Peter. If fact we are the only planet that we know
   of that has this thing called life. And that may be a fluke.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564319

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:46:20 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/21/16 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and
> > maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the
> > motion of celestial objects by gravity.
> 
> 
>    I don't think star have those function, Peter.
> 
>    The gravity was always there, because the mass was always there. The
>    collapsing mass got so hot and the pressure so great that the mass
>    ignited and sustained thermonuclear fusion. The star doesn't know
>    nothin about life, Peter. If fact we are the only planet that we know
>    of that has this thing called life. And that may be a fluke.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

We need to expand our limited knowledge and find truth in vision.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564323

On 3/21/16 8:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:46:20 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 3/21/16 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and
>>> maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the
>>> motion of celestial objects by gravity.
>>
>>
>>     I don't think star have those function, Peter.
>>
>>     The gravity was always there, because the mass was always there. The
>>     collapsing mass got so hot and the pressure so great that the mass
>>     ignited and sustained thermonuclear fusion. The star doesn't know
>>     nothin about life, Peter. If fact we are the only planet that we know
>>     of that has this thing called life. And that may be a fluke.
>>
>>

> We need to expand our limited knowledge and find truth in vision.
>

   We don't need to anthropomorphize things in the universe as they
   exist just fine without life or us.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564326

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:37:08 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/21/16 8:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:46:20 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 3/21/16 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and
> >>> maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the
> >>> motion of celestial objects by gravity.
> >>
> >>
> >>     I don't think star have those function, Peter.
> >>
> >>     The gravity was always there, because the mass was always there. The
> >>     collapsing mass got so hot and the pressure so great that the mass
> >>     ignited and sustained thermonuclear fusion. The star doesn't know
> >>     nothin about life, Peter. If fact we are the only planet that we know
> >>     of that has this thing called life. And that may be a fluke.
> >>
> >>
> 
> > We need to expand our limited knowledge and find truth in vision.
> >
> 
>    We don't need to anthropomorphize things in the universe as they
>    exist just fine without life or us.
> 
> 
You miss the point. The universe exists. Life exists. We exist. And we want to understand the universe and life. We, excluding you. Maybe I alone because I do not subscribe to the prejudices of others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564328

Sam and others here
repeat ideas of others.
They do not have ideas of
their own and cannot evaluate
even the ideas they hold
to be true.
"Fundamental" particles, fields,
gravity just "by being there"- all
of these extremely illogical concepts
and many others
they claim to "understand".........
ROTFALMAO 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564333

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:10:23 PM UTC-4, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:37:08 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 3/21/16 8:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:46:20 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > >> On 3/21/16 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >>> A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and
> > >>> maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the
> > >>> motion of celestial objects by gravity.
> > >>
> > >>     I don't think star have those function, Peter.
> > >>
> > >>     The gravity was always there, because the mass was always there. The
> > >>     collapsing mass got so hot and the pressure so great that the mass
> > >>     ignited and sustained thermonuclear fusion. The star doesn't know
> > >>     nothin about life, Peter. If fact we are the only planet that we know
> > >>     of that has this thing called life. And that may be a fluke.

Fluke you Sam Worm Liar!

> > > We need to expand our limited knowledge and find truth in vision.
> > 
> >    We don't need to anthropomorphize things in the universe as they
> >    exist just fine without life or us.
> 
> You miss the point. The universe exists. Life exists. We exist. And
>we want to understand the universe and life. We, excluding you. Maybe
>I alone because I do not subscribe to the prejudices of others.

Excellent points Peter! I'm not grading you, I'm just impressed. 

Ftr... Sam Worm Liar is a well known proven Misanthrope. One wonders
how he faces himself in any mirror, all the while believing and
wishing humans are a fluke in the vast wonderful Universe. His cure
for Climate Change calls for the elimination of all humans, for a nice
safe empty Green Earth! We've asked Sam often to hold his breath,
until he is dead, to inspire the rest of us to follow in his good will
to save the Earth and Universe from us Us US humans. Sam's still exhaling.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: And that's how one makes friends!”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564443

On 3/21/16 9:10 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> You miss the point. The universe exists. Life exists. We exist. And
> we want to understand the universe and life. We, excluding you. Maybe
> I alone because I do not subscribe to the prejudices of others.
>

   I'm guessing "the prejudices of other" refers to the physics community
   and the scientific body of knowledge that you don't understand from
   Pythagoras to Newtonian physics to relativity and quantum mechanics.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#565237

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:37:08 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/21/16 8:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:46:20 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 3/21/16 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and
> >>> maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the
> >>> motion of celestial objects by gravity.
> >>
> >>
> >>     I don't think star have those function, Peter.
> >>
> >>     The gravity was always there, because the mass was always there. The
> >>     collapsing mass got so hot and the pressure so great that the mass
> >>     ignited and sustained thermonuclear fusion. The star doesn't know
> >>     nothin about life, Peter. If fact we are the only planet that we know
> >>     of that has this thing called life. And that may be a fluke.
> >>
> >>
> 
> > We need to expand our limited knowledge and find truth in vision.
> >
> 
>    We don't need to anthropomorphize things in the universe as they
>    exist just fine without life or us.
> 


Gee Sam, you seem to do that all the time!

(Stars being born, dying, etc.)

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#565273

On 3/24/16 3:23 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:37:08 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 3/21/16 8:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:46:20 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/16 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>> A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and
>>>>> maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the
>>>>> motion of celestial objects by gravity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      I don't think star have those function, Peter.
>>>>
>>>>      The gravity was always there, because the mass was always there. The
>>>>      collapsing mass got so hot and the pressure so great that the mass
>>>>      ignited and sustained thermonuclear fusion. The star doesn't know
>>>>      nothin about life, Peter. If fact we are the only planet that we know
>>>>      of that has this thing called life. And that may be a fluke.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> We need to expand our limited knowledge and find truth in vision.
>>>
>>
>>     We don't need to anthropomorphize things in the universe as they
>>     exist just fine without life or us.
>>
>
>
> Gee Sam, you seem to do that all the time!
>
> (Stars being born, dying, etc.)
>
> Double-A
>

   ;-)



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564392

Dne 22/03/2016 v 02:18 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:46:20 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 3/21/16 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:

>>
>>    I don't think star have those function, Peter.
>>
>>    The gravity was always there, because the mass was always there. The
>>    collapsing mass got so hot and the pressure so great that the mass
>>    ignited and sustained thermonuclear fusion. The star doesn't know
>>    nothin about life, Peter. If fact we are the only planet that we know
>>    of that has this thing called life. And that may be a fluke.
>>
> 
> We need to expand our limited knowledge and find truth in vision.

First step is expand our limited knowledge
to already available knowledge.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564419

Atoms and galaxies are identical except
for time/size scale.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564424

John
Atoms and galaxies are identical except 
for time/size scale. 
-------------

Anyone who would say this is obviously received no training at all in particle physics.

John, it's not just our observations and experiments that tell us about point particles. It's all predicted with theory.

I know this means nothing to you since you just don't understand, but it simply proves you to be a fool. No offense

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564427

La-la land physics 

Point particle? Math
Field? Math
Physics IS the same in all reference
frames- including that of an atom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564429

john
La-la land physics 

Point particle? Math 
Field? Math 
Physics IS the same in all reference 
frames- including that of an atom 
--------------

John you should look up what a Luddite is

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564552

On 03/22/2016 06:42 AM, HVAC wrote:
> john
> La-la land physics
>
> Point particle? Math
> Field? Math
> Physics IS the same in all reference
> frames- including that of an atom
> --------------
>
> John you should look up what a Luddite is
>
HVAC picked these terms up from a popular science article in Rolling 
Stone. He thinks math is physics like so many Luddites today. (Go ahead 
John look it up. Words are the ONLY think HVAC knows.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564449

On 3/22/2016 5:32 AM, john wrote:
> La-la land physics
>
> Point particle? Math
> Field?

Fields are not math, they are physical entities, John.
You've asked about fields, and I've given you reading references, and 
you've thanked me for them. When are you going to actually read them, 
rather than making stuff up like "math field" and lobbing it out there?

> Math
> Physics IS the same in all reference
> frames- including that of an atom
>

There's no such thing as an "atom reference frame", John. Maybe you 
could first learn what "reference frame" means before using the phrase.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564456

Odd
How big is a "reference frame"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web