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

Groups > sci.physics > #550232

Re: inertial frames of reference

From Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups sci.physics
Subject Re: inertial frames of reference
Date 2016-02-03 10:35 -0600
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <n8ta8b$msd$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <ef05bfb0-d901-477e-ab4c-e57398c0c6e2@googlegroups.com> <a958492f-b758-4931-8aa3-8db090767d35@googlegroups.com> <1ee6e6a2-b164-4dbb-98e2-09ee57897e62@googlegroups.com> <n8qvhp$17qb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <bc3cbf01-3c8a-4607-9ff3-0c6cbbed145d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/3/2016 7:40 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd..
>> reptiles, and it wouldn't be sacrilegious, would it? It'd just be wrong.
>
> Not neccesarily so. You would have to explain why inertia exists,
> ruling out gravity before you  could even pretend Im wrong.

No, that's not necessary.

>
>>> We are surrounded isotropically by mass of the universe. > Imagine you float
>>> freely in open intergalactic space. > If you want to move 'west' in this inertial
>>> frame. Why do you > think you will be unnaffected by all the universes mass to the
>>> east > of you? You know gravity exists. You know it can reach out > great cosmological
>>> distances. What logic do you use to > ignore its pull on you even between galaxies.
>>> What observations > can you cite that prove that gravity does >>not reach across
>>> distances > between galaxies?
>
>> It DOES. And it's also small. You can quantify it. You can calculate it. You can
>> calculate the gravitational pull of Andromeda on you right now. You can also do
>>it for the Sombrero galaxy. You should do that to see how small it is.
>
> Nobody has ever tried calculating total mass.

You don't have to do that. All you need is the DENSITY, not the total. 
The density tells you the distribution of the mass. That number IS 
known, Jay, so don't go around saying nobody has estimated that. And 
that's all you need to know.

> You have to take an east
> west axis, divide the universe in half. Calculate total mass of half of infinite
> (!) universe taking into account closer masses pull more than distant. So
> past maybe 15 billion  light    years you might find contribution minimal,
> allowing you to do it approximately with just visible universe.
>
> Calculating just the andromeda is like taking a bean out of a bag of beans,
> measuring  the bean and then saying the whole bag weighs the same.

If you measure one bean and you know how many beans there are per cubic 
meter, then that's all you need. That's what's know.

>
>>>>> Given that you've also described it as a reluctance to move (I think),
>> I'm sure then that an object's inertia must be that force required to
>> overcome its inertia. Is it the force to give it a 1 micrometer per
>> second acceleration in whatever direction it's already traveling? In other
>> words, if it's a force, there are an infinite >number of values it can
>> have. This is not a property one would measure - it's just a property
>> an object in an >inertial >>eference frame has.
> > Im not sure exactly what you mean here. But its parameters are m and a. So vary those and
> you define f.
>
>> f you're calling (inertia) the left-hand side of F=ma, then you're just
> relabeling what everyone else just calls "force". If you want to call all forces "inertias",
> hat's up to you, I suppose. It's just going to be a private language that no one else cares
> about. It'd be like calling a bed a shelf.
>
> Yes but if the bed that Im discussing is still a bed even though I call
> it a shelf then it doesnt matter what I call force or inertia as long as long
> as you my shelf is still a bed. Which you do.

It's pointless to engage in a conversation with you if you're going to 
just call forces inertia and inertia forces. If you don't want to use 
the language of physics in a physics newsgroup, what the hell is the point?

>
>>> You can measure and quantify them in any frame. Not just inertial frames. >
>
>> Not enough. You have to identify the SOURCE of what is producing that force.
> So in the video for the Coriolis effect, you can see the circle that the ball
> is traveling in. So you say there is a measurable force that is pulling that
> ball toward the center of that circle. What is there in the middle of that
> ball's circular >path that is pulling it? Hmmm?
>
> I did not say that *all* of the rest of universe was located in the middle
> of the carousel circle.

In fact NONE of it is.

> No. What I have in this thread is that all of rest of the
> universe is rotating around the carousel. And dragging the ball around
> with it.
> And thats observed in the rotating frame ONCE the ball has left
> the hand. If the video went on for longer,  there was no friction and
> no gravity from earth. Then the ball would be seen swirling
> around the girl and carousel at the same rate as the universe
> immediately after she lets go of the ball at a constant rate equal
> to the rotation rate of the carousel in the ' inertial' frame
> The reccession on the other hand is dictated by the force the girl applies
> and the force pulling from the universe on the ball before she lets go.
> Thats what you call centrifugal I think.
> You can figure out how to calculate how much force she applies by
> doing a shot with just the ball being released.
>


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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 11:31 -0800
  Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:40 -0600
    Re: inertial frames of reference "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:32 -0800
      Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 14:14 -0800
    Re: inertial frames of reference jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-21 05:10 +0000
      Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:58 -0600
        Re: inertial frames of reference jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 19:01 +0000
          Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:10 -0600
  Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 16:25 -0600
    Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 19:47 -0800
      Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 05:37 -0800
      Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:28 -0600
        Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 06:57 -0800
          Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:15 -0600
            Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 07:48 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 19:20 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 14:43 +1100
                Re: inertial frames of reference "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:01 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:31 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:15 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:11 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 13:15 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-24 04:48 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:57 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 05:32 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:56 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 06:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:13 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:58 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:09 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 09:56 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:29 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:25 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 09:48 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:55 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 14:57 -0800
        Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-24 16:03 -0800
          Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 18:32 -0600
            Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 00:50 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:52 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:20 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:34 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:25 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:54 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:32 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 03:15 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 10:18 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 12:52 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:51 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 14:09 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:23 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 05:26 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:10 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:01 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:14 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:02 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:30 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 15:06 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:15 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 18:00 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 04:47 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:19 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:54 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 06:44 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:53 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:07 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:24 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:45 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:32 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:50 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:50 -0500
                Re: Ben Jacoby hates the truth because it convicts him. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:01 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:27 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 09:33 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:11 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:59 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:08 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:39 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:16 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:06 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:40 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:56 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 18:57 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 05:43 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:13 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:19 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 14:47 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:52 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:10 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 01:13 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:16 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:26 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:05 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:31 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:37 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:58 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:05 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:40 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:14 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:58 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:39 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:43 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:01 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:12 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 08:59 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 09:03 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:40 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-30 11:36 -0800
          Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:44 -0600
      Re: inertial frames of reference "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:25 -0800
  Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 05:19 -0800
    Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 06:10 -0800
  Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 10:06 -0800
  Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:23 -0800
    Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-31 08:53 -0800
      Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 11:54 -0800
        Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:04 -0600
          Re: inertial frames of reference xxein1@att.net - 2016-01-31 15:01 -0800
            Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:07 -0600
      Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:54 -0600
        Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 15:04 -0800
          Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:37 -0800
            Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:18 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:26 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:52 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 10:40 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 12:55 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:55 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 16:38 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 07:19 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:53 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 12:55 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 14:06 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-03 02:35 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 10:23 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 01:22 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:44 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:35 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:54 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:04 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:07 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:55 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:59 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 17:34 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:07 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:25 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 12:44 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 11:16 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-06 11:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:20 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:05 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 13:31 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 09:46 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:13 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:23 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 13:42 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:50 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 09:50 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:03 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 10:29 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 01:01 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:18 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:49 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:49 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 14:01 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 16:18 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 16:40 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 16:27 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 01:39 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 05:49 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 10:49 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:20 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:40 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 10:35 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-03 11:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:59 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-03 12:29 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:28 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 00:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:14 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:43 -0600
            Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:20 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:55 -0600
            Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:43 -0600
    Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:51 -0600

csiph-web