sci.physics.relativity

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: PD
• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Bell's Theorem incorrect? The Debate
  • From: FLASH
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Visual refutation of Special Relativity
  • From: doug
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: PD
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: PD
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: PD
• Re: ROCK SOLID PROOF THAT RELATIVITY IS CRAP!
  • From: PD
• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Strich failing to refute gravity probe A
  • From: Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
• Re: Visual refutation of Special Relativity
  • From: Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: ROCK SOLID PROOF THAT RELATIVITY IS CRAP!
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Strich failing to refute gravity probe A
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Did CNN get it wrong?
  • From: OG
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: doug
• Re: Strich failing to refute gravity probe A
  • From: doug
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Visual refutation of Special Relativity
  • From: G
• Re: Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: G
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: G
• Re: Did CNN get it wrong?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why, in crackpot theory, should Minor Crank continue to beat his mother?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: PD
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Androcles
• Did CNN get it wrong?
  • From: yuancur
• Re: In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: harry
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Einstein's Law.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: G
• Why was length defined in terms of the speed of light (c) and not vice versa?
  • From: countableinfinity
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: PD
• Re: ROCK SOLID PROOF THAT RELATIVITY IS CRAP!
  • From: Sue...
• In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: ROCK SOLID PROOF THAT RELATIVITY IS CRAP!
  • From: Sue...
• Re: ROCK SOLID PROOF THAT RELATIVITY IS CRAP!
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Strich failing to refute gravity probe A
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: RP
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: RP
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Questions regarding "second quantization," Yang-Mills, and QCD confinement
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Questions regarding "second quantization," Yang-Mills, and QCD confinement
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: RP
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: RP
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: harry
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: harry
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Igor
• Re: Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Sue...
• "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
  • From: Einsteinhoax
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: RP
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: koobee . wublee
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Questions regarding "second quantization," Yang-Mills, and QCD confinement
  • From: xxein1
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• "The Flaw in High Energy Physics"
  • From: Einsteinhoax
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: Richard Hachel
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: RP
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Questions regarding "second quantization," Yang-Mills, and QCD confinement
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Juan R.
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Relativity Predicts The Universe is Missing!!!
  • From: RP
• Re: Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
  • From: shuba
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: RP
• Questions regarding "second quantization," Yang-Mills, and QCD confinement
  • From: Jay R. Yablon
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: RP
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Dono
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Eric Gisse
• SR's Basic Mistake.
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Light cannot Enlight by Itself!
  • From: mesothorax
• Relativity Predicts The Universe is Missing!!!
  • From: Fungi
• Relativity Predicts the Universe is Missing ???
  • From: cello
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: PD
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Light cannot Enlight by Itself!
  • From: RP
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• The Atheist Apocalypse
  • From: michelnostradamus9@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: pmb
• Re: Light cannot Enlight by Itself!
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Light cannot Enlight by Itself!
  • From: RP
• Re: Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: xxein1
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Henry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: PD
• Re: Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: PD
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Androcles
• Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: YBM
• Galilean Transformation Equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• How many mathematicians ...
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: PD
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Josef Matz
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Iranian physicists work on warp drive?
  • From: SolomonW
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: pmb
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Sigmoids. A new example of ZPE COSMIC ELECTRIC GENERATION between pairing black holes?
  • From: LeoVuyk@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Light cannot Enlight by Itself!
  • From: pmb
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: shuba
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Texas hold'em (2nd-P) NO-speed-of-light-LIMIT
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Texas hold'em (2nd-P) NO-speed-of-light-LIMIT
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Texas hold'em (2nd-P) NO-speed-of-light-LIMIT
  • From: Albertito
• Re: Light cannot Enlight by Itself!
  • From: Cellulose
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: doug
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Light cannot Enlight by Itself!
  • From: pmb
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Texas hold'em (2nd-P) NO-speed-of-light-LIMIT
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Cellulose
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Cellulose
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Cellulose
• Light cannot Enlight by Itself!
  • From: Cellulose
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Cellulose
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Dorn Strich
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: pmb
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: pmb
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: pmb
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Unified Field, Special Relativity
  • From: bkh99
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Iranian physicists work on warp drive?
  • From: FLASH
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
• Re: What have you discovered?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Texas hold'em (2nd-P) NO-speed-of-light-LIMIT
  • From: Albertito
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: PD
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: PD
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: What have you discovered?
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Question about black holes and neutron stars
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: doug
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Frank Wilczek's book Lightness of Being
  • From: FLASH
• Frank Wilczek's book Lightness of Being
  • From: FLASH
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: YBM
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Frank Wilczek's book Lightness of Being
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: PD
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: PD
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Frank Wilczek's book Lightness of Being
  • From: FLASH
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Relativistic Hydrogen molecules extract energy from Vacuum Flucuations
  • From: dlzc
• Relativistic Hydrogen molecules extract energy from Vacuum Flucuations
  • From: froarty572
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Question about black holes and neutron stars
  • From: dlzc
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Question about black holes and neutron stars
  • From: Jimmy
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: pmb
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Dono
• Re: Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Relativity should be illegal
  • From: Norman Bates
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Evolution of GR.
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Androcles
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: doug
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: PD
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Question about black holes and neutron stars
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Androcles
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Androcles
• Question about black holes and neutron stars
  • From: Jimmy
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Androcles
• Re: .9 repeating
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Androcles
• Physics Website
  • From: aadi . physics
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Dono
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Shubee
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: doug
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: doug
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: How you can save fuel and the environment
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Stamenin
• How you can save fuel and the environment
  • From: Energy Saver
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: When Cornered, Relativity shifts to New Mathematics
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: harry
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: The Race to the Asylum
  • From: doug
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: doug
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• The Race to the Asylum
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: doug
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: doug
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: doug
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: doug
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: RP
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: RP
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: RP
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Why Don't Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
  • From: Harry Wilson, DSc
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: pmb
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: pmb
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: tess
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: tess
• Why can we be sure that gravitational waves completely don't interact with vacuum?
  • From: dudajar
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Jim Black
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: doug
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: doug
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Jim Black
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: doug
• Einstein is in Hell!!!
  • From: Snietsnie
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einstein is in Hell!!!
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Jim Black
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: tess
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: tess
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: RECORD OF NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: doug
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Fresh "dicoveries" from Regress in Physics
  • From: Dono
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: papa_rios
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: blackhead
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: doug
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Androcles
• Re: When Cornered, Relativity shifts to New Mathematics
  • From: Androcles
• Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: When Cornered, Relativity shifts to New Mathematics
  • From: doug
• Re: When Cornered, Relativity shifts to New Mathematics
  • From: Papita
• Re: When Cornered, Relativity shifts to New Mathematics
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
  • From: Phil
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: johnreed take 26 Part-4, Modified April 15, 2009
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: pmb
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• johnreed take 26 Part-4, Modified April 15, 2009
  • From: johnlawrencereedjr
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: blackhead
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: blackhead
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Surfer
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: doug
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: PD
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: pmb
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: MMX proves Light isotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: doug
• Re: antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: doug
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: blackhead
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: glird
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: PD
• Re: antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• antimatter and gravity: status?
  • From: funkenstein
• Re: RECORD OF NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
  • From: Sue...
• Re: RECORD OF NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
  • From: Dono
• Re: RECORD OF NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
  • From: Sue...
• RECORD OF NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• virtual ethnography of science cranks
  • From: b jones
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: erg
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Should GRT be amended?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: doug
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: PD
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: PD
• Should GRT be amended?
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: MMX proves Light isotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: shuba
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: doug
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: doug
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: doug
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: doug
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: harry
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: PD
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: harry
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: PD
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: PD
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: PD
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: PD
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: PD
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: PD
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: doug
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: PD
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: pmb
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: doug
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: doug
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: doug
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: pmb
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: Dono
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Dono
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: harry
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: harry
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Jackson's derivation of the Lorentz Matrix
  • From: blackhead
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: ABOUT THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: ABOUT THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dono
• Re: Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: Simple Simon
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Re: Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Dono
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: doug
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: PD
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: doug
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Re: Why physicists don’t say: ‘potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• DIRTY WATER, washing Feet - silent teachings of ZEN and Naqshbandi
  • From: baba
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: pmb
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: MMX proves Light isotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light isotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light isotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Sue...
• Re: For a really good laugh...
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: pmb
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dono
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: doug
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: doug
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: Dono
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Dono
• Re: Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Wang et all re sagnac & linear composition of velocities
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: harry
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• For a really good laugh...
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: doug
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Dono
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: Dono
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Dono
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Why physicists don't say: 'potential mass/energy E=Mc^2' ?
  • From: Josef Matz
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Why physicists don't say: 'potential mass/energy E=Mc^2' ?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Why physicists don't say: 'potential mass/energy E=Mc^2' ?
  • From: Josef Matz
• Re: Why physicists don’t say: ‘potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?
  • From: Dono
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: doug
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: John Polasek
• Unified Field: Relative Momentum
  • From: bkh99
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: harry
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: harry
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: harry
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Dono
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: pmb
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: pmb
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: doug
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: xxein1
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: xxein1
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brad
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Alfonso
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Number of free parameters for the Lorentz group?
  • From: blackhead
• Re: Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Should evidence which ambiguously supports a concept be a concern for physics?
  • From: Phil
• Unified Field Theory: The Higgs Field
  • From: bkh99
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Sue...
• Einsteins 1905 paper flawed from the start.
  • From: Dead Paul
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: TickerBandit
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: TickerBandit
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Alfonso
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brad
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brad
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Max Keon
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: harry
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: harry
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Why physicists don’t say: ‘potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?
  • From: socratus
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: doug
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Question on the Ives and Stilwell experiment
  • From: xray4abc
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Sue...
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: koobee . wublee
• Re: ABOUT THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM
  • From: Sue...
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Sue...
• Re: ABOUT THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Nike Shoes,Jordan Shoes are on sale in this online store, you can buy cheap Jordan Shoes here and we have new Air Jordan, nike shoes every weeks,Nike Air Jordan Shoes,Nike Shoes,Gucci Shoes,(www.lagogoing.com)
  • From: three
• Re: Universe expands into WHAT?
  • From: PD
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Alfonso
• Re: Universe expands into WHAT?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Is Einstein a subset of Darwin?
  • From: pmb
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: doug
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: doug
• Re: Who is who ?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: John Polasek
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: PD
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Dono
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Tom Roberts
• MMX proves Light anisotropic
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: The nuclear atom is illogical.
  • From: shuba
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• A Useful Website for Physics Researchers - MyNetResearch.com
  • From: Dr. Bay Arinze
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: ABOUT THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Old Data/New Model
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Old Data/New Model
  • From: ESKI
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Yuriy
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Yuriy
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: PD
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Old Data/New Model
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Old Data/New Model
  • From: ESKI
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: PD
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Hyperbolic and Elliptic geodesics in 3D
  • From: Androcles
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Yuriy
• Re: Hyperbolic and Elliptic geodesics in 3D
  • From: gudi
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Hyperbolic and Elliptic geodesics in 3D
  • From: gudi
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: valls
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is Einstein a subset of Darwin?
  • From: Jim Black
• Re: Integrity and Credibility among Physicists
  • From: Jim Black
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Dono
• Re: Universe expands into WHAT?
  • From: Jim Black
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: valls
• Re: Time dilation #2
  • From: Dono
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Time dilation #2
  • From: bill
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: carlip-nospam
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: carlip-nospam
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: PD
• Re: Hyperbolic and Elliptic geodesics in 3D
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Hyperbolic and Elliptic geodesics in 3D
  • From: gudi
• Re: geodesic parallels
  • From: gudi
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: Geodesics in elliptic, hyperbolic 3D geometries
  • From: gudi
• Re: A Review of Classical and Quantum Electromagnetism in Integral Formulation, and a Possible Explanation of Certain Aspects of the Casimir Effect
  • From: Darwin123
• shoes,clothing,watches, caps,etc. (paypal payment)
  • From: lili
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Is Einstein a subset of Darwin?
  • From: The Benutzer
• Re: Universe expands into WHAT?
  • From: The Benutzer
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• A Review of Classical and Quantum Electromagnetism in Integral Formulation, and a Possible Explanation of Certain Aspects of the Casimir Effect
  • From: Jay R. Yablon
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: causality?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Questions about Casimir effect
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Who is who ?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Who is who ?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Who is who ?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Questions about Casimir effect
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Who is who ?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Who is who ?
  • From: shuba
• Re: Is Einstein a subset of Darwin?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Universe expands into WHAT?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: pmb
• Questions about Casimir effect
  • From: Jay R. Yablon
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: bill
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
• Re: Is gravity relative?
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Is gravity relative?
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Is Einstein a subset of Darwin?
  • From: warmbeach
• The Unification of GRAVITY with RELATIVITY finally discovered ! !
  • From: warmbeach
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Yuriy
• The Galilean Limit of EM (and Gauge Theory) Done Right (or: Correcting Levy-Leblond's Mistake)
  • From: Rock Brentwood
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Universe expands into WHAT?
  • From: The Benutzer
• Re: Who is who ?
  • From: Edon Benutzer
• Re: Why is Google Groups the most popular way to post ?
  • From: sal
• Is Einstein a subset of Darwin?
  • From: Edon Benutzer
• Who is who ?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Why is Google Groups the most popular way to post ?
  • From: Don Stockbauer
• Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: PD
• Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: pmb
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: bill
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: bill
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Sue...
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Sue...
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Back to Relativity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Androcles
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: shuba
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: betterboybob
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Edon Benutzer
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: PD
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Why Space-Time does not predict The Simulation?
  • From: Edon Benutzer
• Why Big Bang is such a small Theory?
  • From: Edon Benutzer
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Back to Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Back to Relativity
  • From: sal
• Re: Test your basic knowledge of physics during break from relativity.
  • From: sal
• Re: Back to Relativity
  • From: Danny
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Back to Relativity
  • From: Dono
• Back to Relativity
  • From: zarmewa
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: PD
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: brentlmt
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dono
• Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Test your basic knowledge of physics during break from relativity.
  • From: Androcles
• Einstein elevator and the EEP
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Test your basic knowledge of physics during break from relativity.
  • From: PD
• Re: How is Gravity "acting at distance"???
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Test your basic knowledge of physics during break from relativity.
  • From: zarmewa
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: PD
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: doug
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: doug
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: shuba
• Re: Time dilation - can't spot my error.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Time dilation - can't spot my error.
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
  • From: Chris
• Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
  • From: Chris
• Re: Where does the mass of the particle come from?
  • From: Edon Benutzer
• The need for Empirical Evidences
  • From: Edon Benutzer
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Instructor Solution Manual
  • From: markrainsun
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dono
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: mluttgens
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: sal
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: xxein1
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: xxein1
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Dr. Henri Wilson
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• A new concept of flying. How can that be?
  • From: Yuriy
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation - can't spot my error.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Time dilation - can't spot my error.
  • From: kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Time dilation - can't spot my error.
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Time dilation - can't spot my error.
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Cephalobus_alienus
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: harry
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: doug
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Where does the mass of the particle come from?
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Sue...
• Re: johnreed take 26 Part-4 on the Principle of Equivalence: Saturday, 28 March, 2009 - Summary
  • From: Androcles
• johnreed take 26 Part-4 on the Principle of Equivalence: Saturday, 28 March, 2009 - Summary
  • From: johnlawrencereedjr
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: OG
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• causality?
  • From: marcofuics
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: PD
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: harry
• Re: Time dilation - can't spot my error.
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
  • From: Sue...
• Re: Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Post Deletions
  • From: PD
• Where does the mass of the particle come from?
  • From: socratus
• Re: Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Post Deletions
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
  • From: Uncle Ben
• Re: Post Deletions
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
  • From: dlzc
• Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
  • From: zarmewa
• Re: Time dilation - can't spot my error.
  • From: John Kennaugh
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: koobee . wublee
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: mL
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: koobee . wublee
• Re: does light travel in 4 D
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Post Deletions
  • From: Bob Remeaux
• Re: Post Deletions
  • From: George Hammond
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Can the theory of relativity be proved?
  • From: harry
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Post Deletions
  • From: Bob Remeaux
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: jem
• Re: Can the theory of relativity be proved?
  • From: pmb
• Re: does light travel in 4 D
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: pmb
• Re: Post Deletions
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Post Deletions
  • From: Uncle Ben
• does light travel in 4 D
  • From: Chris
• Post Deletions
  • From: Chris
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Can the theory of relativity be proved?
  • From: Androcles
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: harry
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: harry
• Re: Can the theory of relativity be proved?
  • From: harry
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: doug
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: doug
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: sal
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Dono
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Surfer
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Dono
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: xxein1
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: valls
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: hi
  • From: Bill Hobba
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: edon
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: PD
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Dono
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: sal
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Tom Roberts
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: valls
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Dono
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: PD
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: PD
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: sal
• hi
  • From: letsdobiz@xxxxxxxx
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: sal
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: valls
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: valls
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: Dono
• Re: Time dilation
  • From: valls
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: Dirk Van de moortel
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: harry
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: harry
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: harry
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: harry
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: doug
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: dlzc
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: Darwin123
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: PD
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
  • From: maxwell
• Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
  • From: maxwell
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: doug
• Einstein Notation confuse Gravity!
  • From: edon
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Gauge Relativity Theory
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Gauge Relativity Theory
  • From: Paul B. Andersen
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Dorn.Strich
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: pmb
• Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
  • From: Androcles
• mass definition
  • From: marcofuics
• Re: Can the theory of relativity be proved?
  • From: harry
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: pmb
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Simple four velocity question
  • From: Jonathan Doolin
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Eric Gisse
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: harry
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: harry
• Re: De Broglie Relations expressed through rapidity, the greatest contribution to QM ever
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Dono
• Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
  • From: Bruce Richmond
• Re: De Broglie Relations expressed through rapidity, the greatest contribution to QM ever
  • From: Dono
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: YBM
• Re: De Broglie Relations expressed through rapidity, the greatest contribution to QM ever
  • From: Ken S. Tucker
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: PD
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: rbwinn
• Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
  • From: Peter Riedt
• Re: The Meaning of "Acceleration" in Curved Space-Time
  • From: pmb
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: xxein1
• Re: ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Dono
• ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
  • From: Stamenin
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Androcles
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Stamenin
• The Meaning of "Acceleration" in Curved Space-Time
  • From: instbio
• Re: Wait oh! - you mean? (was A flawlessly-designed MMX...)
  • From: despicabilityhoho
• Re: galilean transformation equations
  • From: Androcles
• Re: Wait oh! - you mean? (was A flawlessly-designed MMX...)
  • From: despicabilityhoho