sci.physics
- RANDOMNESS REIGNS IN CRYSTALLINE ORDER, Sam Wormley
- CompIMAGE, Buffalo-Niagara, May 5-7, 2010 - Announce & Call for papers, tavares@xxxxxxxx
- Magnetic monopoles == god,
Andrew Usher
- Re: Magnetic monopoles == god, Uncle Al
- A Look at Quantum "Spookiness",
Ylluf1
- Re: A Look at Quantum "Spookiness", Uncle Al
- "Creation of Universe and the Gravity Transformations", Ylluf1
- Remarkable Properties of dy/dt = y + y^2, dx/dt = x - x^2, OsherD
- Re: The future of our country, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Solution Manual to Essentials of Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 1st Ed., by Cengel & Cimbala, hotsolution
- The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems, franklinhu
- Flat Stone in the air!!,
HellBound Angel
- Re: Flat Stone in the air!!, Cwatters
- Quantum Gravity 332.8: The Two-Interaction Scenario Adds Pure Logistic and Pure Anti-Logistic Scenarios, OsherD
- leverian action/reaction law: weight or force forward reduces with compression or distance backwards, Argir Pandev
- Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears!,
tadchem
- Re: Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears!, Surfer
- Re: Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears!, Uncle Al
- Re: Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears!, Edward Green
- (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (square root -1) sheds new light on Compton wavelength, Reduced Compton wavelength, and Swartzchild radius.,
cjcountess
- Re: (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (square root -1) sheds new light on Compton wavelength, Reduced Compton wavelength, and Swartzchild radius., Blither Snipped
- <Possible follow-ups>
- (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (square root -1) sheds new light on Compton wavelength, Reduced Compton wavelength, and Swartzchild radius., cjcountess
- unified monopoles by e. dedanoe u.,
Argir Pandev
- Re: unified monopoles by e. dedanoe u.,
Uncle Al
- Re: unified monopoles by e. dedanoe u.,
Argir Pandev
- Re: unified monopoles by e. dedanoe u., Argir Pandev
- Re: unified monopoles by e. dedanoe u.,
Argir Pandev
- Re: unified monopoles by e. dedanoe u.,
Uncle Al
- three poles magnets,
Argir Pandev
- Re: three poles magnets,
Argir Pandev
- Re: three poles magnets, Argir Pandev
- Re: three poles magnets, Uncle Al
- Re: three poles magnets,
Argir Pandev
- The origin of micro Comets and Ball lightning., LeoVuyk@xxxxxxxxx
- Quantum Gravity 332.7: (x-->y)(u-->v) When u = 1 - x an y = v, OsherD
- Newton's law of gravitational attraction,
Mister X
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction,
eric gisse
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Argir Pandev
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction,
Mister X
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, eric gisse
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Rock Brentwood
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Jim Black
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Androcles
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Rock Brentwood
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction,
Timo Nieminen
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, PD
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction,
Richard Tobin
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Timo Nieminen
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, hhc314
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Timo Nieminen
- GRAVITONS and the inverse square, Andrew Usher
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Androcles
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, PD
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction,
Uncle Al
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, DanB
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Whoever
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction,
eric gisse
- Re: Newton's law of gravitational attraction, Jim Black
- Re: membership, Androcles
- Re: Put your circuits in the sea MGMT, Jim Black
- Re: "H.E.Retic Postings and SPAM", Musatov
- Re: "H.E.Retic Postings and SPAM", Uncle Al
- Re: "H.E.Retic Postings and SPAM", eric gisse
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google,
Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google,
Tom Potter
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google, Tom Potter
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google, Tom Potter
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google,
Tom Potter
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google,
alien8er
- Re: Here's a better Usenet Archive than Google, Tom Potter
- Re: Electric bicycles will soon replace cars for commuting.,
John Stafford
- Message not available
- Re: Transparent aluminium is just the start: a new state of matter, Sam Wormley
- Re: Transparent aluminium is just the start: a new state of matter, jimp
- Re: Transparent aluminium is just the start: a new state of matter, Uncle Al
- Re: Opportunity for fame and glory and your rightful place on Barnes & Noble bookshelves, eric gisse
- Re: Opportunity for fame and glory and your rightful place on Barnes & Noble bookshelves, Sam Wormley
- Re: Opportunity for fame and glory and your rightful place on Barnes & Noble bookshelves, Uncle Al
- Re: Opportunity for fame and glory and your rightful place on Barnes & Noble bookshelves, Brane Mustav falled out agin
- Re: Opportunity for fame and glory and your rightful place on Barnes & Noble bookshelves, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW,
eric gisse
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW,
Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Androcles
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, eric gisse
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, jbriggs444
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Androcles
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Androcles
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, jbriggs444
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Androcles
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Jano L.
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW,
Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Androcles
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW,
Jacques Mallah
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW,
Edward Green
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Uncle Ben
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW, Androcles
- Re: Entropy and dQ vs dW,
Edward Green
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Victor Eijkhout
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
jimp
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Edward Green
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Timo Nieminen
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Uncle Al
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
Androcles
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
Victor Eijkhout
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Androcles
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Victor Eijkhout
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Androcles
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
Victor Eijkhout
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
Helmut Wabnig
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Victor Eijkhout
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Uncle Al
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
John Bailey
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
jimp
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, John Bailey
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, jimp
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Androcles
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: How strong are Coriolis forces?,
jimp
- Re: Paul Stowe's Unit system ( e vs. G),
Paul Stowe
- Re: Paul Stowe's Unit system ( e vs. G),
Paul Stowe
- Re: Paul Stowe's Unit system ( e vs. G), Androcles
- Re: Paul Stowe's Unit system ( e vs. G), Paul Stowe
- Re: Paul Stowe's Unit system ( e vs. G), Androcles
- Re: Paul Stowe's Unit system ( e vs. G),
Paul Stowe
- Re: Newton's Laws,
Androcles
- Re: Newton's Laws,
Ace0f_5pades
- Re: Newton's Laws, Androcles
- Re: Newton's Laws,
Ace0f_5pades
- Re: Newton's Laws, hhc314
- Re: work/energy/impulse/momentum,
Androcles
- Re: work/energy/impulse/momentum,
Mister X
- Re: work/energy/impulse/momentum, Androcles
- Re: work/energy/impulse/momentum, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: work/energy/impulse/momentum,
Mister X
- Re: work/energy/impulse/momentum, Ray Vickson
- Re: How Humanity will Extinct., hhc314
- Re: integers are scalars?,
Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: integers are scalars?, Raghar
- Re: integers are scalars?,
Androcles
- Re: integers are scalars?, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: integers are scalars?, hhc314
- Re: integers are scalars?,
BillGill
- Re: integers are scalars?, jbriggs444
- Re: integers are scalars?, Raghar
- Re: integers are scalars?, PD
- Re: Quantum Theory- basic meaning,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Quantum Theory- basic meaning, Sam Wormley
- Re: Quantum Theory- basic meaning, John Stafford
- Re: "A Snapshot of a Photon", Uncle Al
- Re: FBI did not work with Israel police, Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: No curvature and no schmervature of space!!,
Y.Porat
- Re: No curvature and no schmervature of space!!,
eric gisse
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: No curvature and no schmervature of space!!, Whoever
- Re: No curvature and no schmervature of space!!,
eric gisse
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: No curvature and no schmervature of space!!, Whoever
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter, Sam Wormley
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter, Uncle Al
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter,
Benj
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter,
eric gisse
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter, Benj
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter, eric gisse
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter,
eric gisse
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter,
eric gisse
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter,
BURT
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter, Benj
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter, Androcles
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter, eric gisse
- Re: If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter,
BURT
- Re: CO2 sponge ??,
tadchem
- Re: CO2 sponge ??, Benj
- Re: CO2 sponge ??, Uncle Al
- Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC,
eric gisse
- Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC,
alien8er
- Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC, eric gisse
- Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC, alien8er
- Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC, Sam Wormley
- Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC, Sam Wormley
- Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC,
alien8er
- Re: WHAT?S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC, Uncle Al
- Re: WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 24 July 09 Washington, DC, jimp
- Re: Redefining Planck Scale in light of Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 which leads to Quantum Gravity Plain and Simple, Uncle Al
- Re: Redefining Planck Scale in light of Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 which leads to Quantum Gravity Plain and Simple,
Dr Math
- Re: Redefining Planck Scale in light of Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 which leads to Quantum Gravity Plain and Simple,
cjcountess
- Re: Redefining Planck Scale in light of Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 which leads to Quantum Gravity Plain and Simple, cjcountess
- Re: Redefining Planck Scale in light of Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 which leads to Quantum Gravity Plain and Simple, cjcountess
- Re: Redefining Planck Scale in light of Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 which leads to Quantum Gravity Plain and Simple, cjcountess
- Re: Redefining Planck Scale in light of Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 which leads to Quantum Gravity Plain and Simple,
cjcountess
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, Sam Wormley
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty,
eric gisse
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty,
john
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, eric gisse
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, john
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, Sam Wormley
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, eric gisse
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, john
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, eric gisse
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, Sam Wormley
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty,
john
- Re: Black Holes and Energy-Time uncertainty, Jim Black
- Re: "The Source of Gravitational Energy", Uncle Al
- Re: Expert knowledge needed re Big Bang, Uncle Al
- Re: Expert knowledge needed re Big Bang, Helmut Wabnig
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Chinese scientists keep testing for gravity reductions during ...,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Chinese scientists keep testing for gravity reductions during ...,
NoEinstein
- Re: Chinese scientists keep testing for gravity reductions during ..., G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Chinese scientists keep testing for gravity reductions during ..., NoEinstein
- Re: Chinese scientists keep testing for gravity reductions during ..., G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Chinese scientists keep testing for gravity reductions during ..., NoEinstein
- Re: Chinese scientists keep testing for gravity reductions during ..., PD
- Re: Chinese scientists keep testing for gravity reductions during ...,
NoEinstein
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: New theory for ultimate fate of the universe, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Your opinion please on E=M(C+/-theta)^2, Uncle Al
- Re: Your opinion please on E=M(C+/-theta)^2,
hhc314
- Re: Your opinion please on E=M(C+/-theta)^2, Earle Jones
- Re: Your opinion please on E=M(C+/-theta)^2, hhc314
- Re: Your opinion please on E=M(C+/-theta)^2, eric gisse
- Re: Electric grid is becoming more vulnerable to EM weaponry, eric gisse
- Re: Electric grid is becoming more vulnerable to EM weaponry, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Electric grid is becoming more vulnerable to EM weaponry, Uncle Al
- Re: Electric grid is becoming more vulnerable to EM weaponry, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Locating a wireless access point in 3-space., eric gisse
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Locating a wireless access point in 3-space., Dono.
- Re: Locating a wireless access point in 3-space., Tom Roberts
- Re: Locating a wireless access point in 3-space., Musatov
- Re: Locating a wireless access point in 3-space.,
doug
- Re: Locating a wireless access point in 3-space., scribio_vide
- Re: google deleted this post.,
Mitch Perkins
- Re: google deleted this post.,
hanson
- Re: google deleted this post., Mitch Perkins
- Re: google deleted this post., hanson
- Re: google deleted this post., Mitch Perkins
- Re: google deleted this post., Androcles
- Re: google deleted this post.,
hanson
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity,
hanson
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity,
Mitch Perkins
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity, hanson
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity, Mitch Perkins
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity, hanson
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity, Mitch Perkins
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity, hanson
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity, Mitch Perkins
- Re: The INTENSE Evil of uncle Al's Diversity,
Mitch Perkins
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Upgrade Me to Human-Version 2.0, Uncle Al
- Re: Upgrade Me to Human-Version 2.0, Uncle Al
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?, Sam Wormley
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?, Sam Wormley
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?, Sam Wormley
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Does Electric Field & Magnetic Field need a medium to travel?, Sam Wormley
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power.,
Jacques Mallah
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power.,
Uncle Ben
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Androcles
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Uncle Ben
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Androcles
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Uncle Ben
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Androcles
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Jacques Mallah
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Androcles
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power.,
Uncle Ben
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power.,
tadchem
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power.,
Androcles
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Jacques Mallah
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power., Androcles
- Re: Work is mad. Fat is power.,
Androcles
- Re: The Total Solar Eclipse of 2009, Androcles
- Re: Compton Effect and absurdities of modern physics, eric gisse
- Re: Compton Effect and absurdities of modern physics,
Darwin123
- Re: Compton Effect and absurdities of modern physics, Autymn D. C.
- Re: Compton Effect and absurdities of modern physics, Uncle Al
- Re: Compton Effect and absurdities of modern physics, Autymn D. C.
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: "Will the LIGO Experiment Work?", Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Solution manual to Accounting Information Systems 9E George H. Bodnar William S Hopwood, hotsolution
- Re: USA Apollo 11 Moon Landing Fake - See List,
pmb
- Re: USA Apollo 11 Moon Landing Fake - See List, Nomen Publicus
- Re: USA Apollo 11 Moon Landing Fake - See List, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: USA Apollo 11 Moon Landing Fake - See List, Sanny
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???,
OG
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???,
Paul Stowe
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, eric gisse
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Paul Stowe
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, eric gisse
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Paul Stowe
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, eric gisse
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Paul Stowe
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, eric gisse
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, OG
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Androcles
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, OG
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Androcles
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Paul Stowe
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, OG
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Paul Stowe
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, OG
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Androcles
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, OG
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???, Androcles
- Re: CMBR Dipole, which is right???,
Paul Stowe
- Re: gravity and jumping,
jimp
- Re: gravity and jumping,
david
- Re: gravity and jumping, jimp
- Re: gravity and jumping,
david
- Re: gravity and jumping,
Sam Wormley
- Re: gravity and jumping,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: gravity and jumping, Sam Wormley
- Re: gravity and jumping,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: gravity and jumping,
Benj
- Re: gravity and jumping, Y.Porat
- Re: gravity and jumping, david
- Re: gravity and jumping, Bill Snyder
- Re: gravity and jumping,
Cwatters
- Re: gravity and jumping, Cwatters
- Re: gravity and jumping,
jbriggs444
- Re: gravity and jumping,
jbriggs444
- Re: gravity and jumping, david
- Re: gravity and jumping,
jbriggs444
- Re: gravity and jumping,
OG
- Re: gravity and jumping, Androcles
- Re: gravity and jumping, david
- Re: gravity and jumping,
jbriggs444
- Re: gravity and jumping, OG
- Re: gravity and jumping, david
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: How to differentiate between a star and Galaxy in sky?, Sanny
- Re: How to differentiate between a star and Galaxy in sky?, guskz
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?,
Androcles
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?,
Jim Newman
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, Androcles
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, Jim Newman
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, Androcles
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, Jim Newman
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?,
Jim Newman
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, tadchem
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, Cwatters
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, Sam Wormley
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, PD
- Re: Why is there enough light under a shade tree? Why isn't there an absence of light?, Timo Nieminen
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Nyms getting the most attention in Sci.Physics, pmb
- Re: Nyms getting the most attention in Sci.Physics, Androcles
- Message not available
- Re: Stop wasting those US$1,000 billion, Uncle Al
- Re: Why Colonize Space?,
BURT
- Re: Why Colonize Space?, G. L. Bradford
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Why Colonize Space?,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Why Colonize Space?, G. L. Bradford
- Re: Why Colonize Space?, Sam Wormley
- Re: Feynman diagrams, BURT
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Feynman diagrams, Y.Porat
- Message not available
- Re: Density of energy,
Timo Nieminen
- Re: Density of energy, BURT
- Re: Density of energy,
David Hilbert
- Re: Density of energy, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Density of energy, Sam Wormley
- Re: Density of energy, Androcles
- Re: Density of energy, David Hilbert
- Re: Density of energy, Androcles
- Re: Density of energy, Timo Nieminen
- Re: Density of energy, Androcles
- Re: Density of energy, John Polasek
- Re: Photon (silly question),
Uncle Al
- Re: Photon (silly question), John Stafford
- Re: Photon (silly question), Cwatters
- Re: Photon (silly question),
PD
- Re: Photon (silly question),
pmb
- Re: Photon (silly question), PD
- Re: Photon (silly question), pmb
- Re: Photon (silly question), PD
- Re: Photon (silly question), pmb
- Re: Photon (silly question), PD
- Re: Photon (silly question), pmb
- Re: Photon (silly question), Cwatters
- Re: Photon (silly question), pmb
- Re: Photon (silly question), Cwatters
- Re: Photon (silly question),
pmb
- Re: Photon (silly question), Sam Wormley
- Re: Feedback, Androcles
- <Possible follow-ups>
- feedback, Clifford Nelson
- Re: Is mind required in quantum physics?, BURT
- Re: Is mind required in quantum physics?, Androcles
- Re: Is mind required in quantum physics?, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is mind required in quantum physics?, Jim Black
- Re: Thanks army core of engineers for 70,000 ton logs, Dale Robbins
- Re: "Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?", Uncle Al
- Re: "Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?", zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Ancient Climate-Change Event Puzzles Scientists,
Yousuf Khan
- Re: Ancient Climate-Change Event Puzzles Scientists, Sam Wormley
- Re: solar energy from orbit to earth by radio waves?, Androcles
- Re: solar energy from orbit to earth by radio waves?, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: solar energy from orbit to earth by radio waves?, tj Frazir
- Re: solar energy from orbit to earth by radio waves?, jimp
- Re: A better way to read books.,
Tom Potter
- Re: A better way to read books.,
Sam Wormley
- Re: A better way to read books., Tom Potter
- Re: A better way to read books.,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Vague Scientist,
Uncle Al
- Re: Vague Scientist, Puppet_Sock
- Re: The integral form and the differential form,
eric gisse
- Re: The integral form and the differential form, BURT
- Re: The integral form and the differential form,
Andrew Usher
- Re: The integral form and the differential form, eric gisse
- Re: The integral form and the differential form, Andrew Usher
- Re: The integral form and the differential form, eric gisse
- Re: The integral form and the differential form, Andrew Usher
- Re: The integral form and the differential form, Androcles
- Re: The integral form and the differential form, eric gisse
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: The integral form and the differential form, BURT
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign,
Pmb
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign,
NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, pmb
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Message not available
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, doug
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Message not available
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Message not available
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, doug
- Message not available
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, doug
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign,
NoEinstein
- Message not available
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, doug
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, doug
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, doug
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Message not available
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, PD
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign,
Ray Vickson
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, Puppet_Sock
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign,
Uncle Al
- Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign, NoEinstein
- Re: LRO sees Apollo landers and more, Uncle Al
- Re: Where's Apollo?, hanson
- Re: Where's Apollo?, Sam Wormley
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Solution manual to Vector Mechanics for Engineers; Statics 8th edition Beer Johnston, hotsolution
- Re: simple force/mass question, Sam Wormley
- Re: simple force/mass question,
Androcles
- Re: simple force/mass question,
Tom Impelluso
- Re: simple force/mass question, Androcles
- Re: simple force/mass question, Tom Impelluso
- Re: simple force/mass question, Greg Neill
- Re: simple force/mass question, Androcles
- Re: simple force/mass question, Cwatters
- Re: simple force/mass question, Tom Impelluso
- Re: simple force/mass question, Cwatters
- Re: simple force/mass question,
Tom Impelluso
- Re: simple force/mass question, Uncle Al
- Re: simple force/mass question,
Yousuf Khan
- Re: simple force/mass question, Tom Impelluso
- Re: simple force/mass question, Ray Vickson
- Re: simple force/mass question,
OG
- Re: simple force/mass question,
Androcles
- Re: simple force/mass question, OG
- Re: simple force/mass question, Androcles
- Re: simple force/mass question,
Androcles
- Re: simple force/mass question, pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, hanson
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
tadchem
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Androcles
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, jmfbahciv
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, jmfbahciv
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, tadchem
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Androcles
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Yousuf Khan
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
Uncle Al
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Androcles
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Sanny
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Sanny
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Sam Wormley
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
alien8er
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Jim Black
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, eric gisse
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, alien8er
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
pmb
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Eric Gisse
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Lofty Goat
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Y.Porat
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
Marvin the Martian
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
Marvin the Martian
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, jmfbahciv
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, eric gisse
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, jmfbahciv
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, Marvin the Martian
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups, jmfbahciv
- Re: Regulating the Internet to get rid of spam in sci.physics newsgroups,
Marvin the Martian
- Re: "The Nature of Mass", Sanny
- Re: "The Nature of Mass", Uncle Al
- Re: ARCTIC IMAGES DECLASSIFIED, jimp
- Re: ARCTIC IMAGES DECLASSIFIED, tadchem
- Re: ARCTIC IMAGES DECLASSIFIED, Matthew Lybanon
- Re: PING - franklinhu, Sam Wormley
- Re: "Do Virtual Photons Exist?", Androcles
- Re: "Do Virtual Photons Exist?", Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Porat Writes, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Random numbers faster, Mistress Helios
- Re: Random numbers faster,
Benj
- Re: Random numbers faster, Mistress Helios
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: There is no physical length contraction, tj Frazir
- Re: There is no physical length contraction, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: There is no physical length contraction, tj Frazir
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: New Theory: Gravity Driven Universe -- Roy Masters,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: New Theory: Gravity Driven Universe -- Roy Masters,
Sam Wormley
- Re: New Theory: Gravity Driven Universe -- Roy Masters, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: New Theory: Gravity Driven Universe -- Roy Masters, Sam Wormley
- Re: New Theory: Gravity Driven Universe -- Roy Masters, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: New Theory: Gravity Driven Universe -- Roy Masters, BURT
- Re: New Theory: Gravity Driven Universe -- Roy Masters,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Antenna - receive vs transmit, mike.lebedev
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Wind energy car instead of Alaskan fuel, tj Frazir
- Re: "Corrections to Special Relativity", Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- "Corrections to Special Relativity",
Ylluf1
- Re: "Corrections to Special Relativity", Uncle Al
- Re: "Corrections to Special Relativity", eric gisse
- Re: The NIST MSEL Postdoc Experience, Uncle Al
- Re: Nuclear Isomer Energy Storage & Gamma Rays that are really UV, Eric Gisse
- Re: Nuclear Isomer Energy Storage & Gamma Rays that are really UV, Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: The 1% hollow moon / Brad Guth, Uncle Al
- Re: The 1% hollow moon / Brad Guth, Uncle Al
- Re: The 1% hollow moon / Brad Guth, Uncle Al
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
tadchem
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
jimp
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
jmfbahciv
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Richard Herring
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Richard Herring
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Richard Herring
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, jimp
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Richard Herring
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, jimp
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Richard Herring
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, jimp
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
jmfbahciv
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Androcles
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary,
Josh Reece
- Re: Airport in the Thames Estuary, tj Frazir
- Re: What if(on Hair),
Uncle Al
- Re: What if(on Hair), G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if(on Hair),
Sam Wormley
- Re: What if(on Hair) or Entropy, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Solution manual to Mechanics of Materials, 5th and 6th Edition by James M. Gere, Asghar Abbas Jivani
- Re: Distance-Learning BSc,
Cavan Matthew King
- Re: Distance-Learning BSc, Marvin the Martian
- Re: Distance-Learning BSc, Marvin the Martian
- Re: Distance-Learning BSc, Uncle Al
- Re: WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 10 Jul 09 Washington, DC, G. L. Bradford
- Re: "The Flaw in High Energy Physics", Uncle Al
- Re: Matter waves vs Photon,
Sanny
- Re: Matter waves vs Photon, M.Parker
- Re: Matter waves vs Photon, Uncle Al
- Re: Matter waves vs Photon,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Matter waves vs Photon, M.Parker
- Re: Matter waves vs Photon, M.Parker
- Re: Yet another oldest Supernova ever, Yousuf Khan
- Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity", Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Inflatable Tower Promises Easy Access to Outer Space, Will
- Re: Inflatable Tower Promises Easy Access to Outer Space, Will
- Re: Why LHC is dangerous,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Why LHC is dangerous,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Why LHC is dangerous, Sam Wormley
- Re: Why LHC is dangerous,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: "Gravity", Uncle Al
- Re: "Gravity",
Dr Logic
- Re: "Gravity",
cjcountess
- Re: "Gravity", Uncle Al
- Re: "Gravity", cjcountess
- Re: "Gravity", Uncle Al
- Re: "Gravity",
cjcountess
- <Possible follow-ups>
- "Gravity",
Deknar
- Re: "Gravity", Uncle Al
- Re: Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?,
Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Sam Wormley
- Message not available
- Re: Google indexes Tom Potter's posts., Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google indexes Tom Potter's posts., Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google indexes Tom Potter's posts., Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google indexes Tom Potter's posts., Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Sam Wormley
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Eric Gisse
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Mitch Perkins
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Sam Wormley
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Sam Wormley
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- Message not available
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!,
Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Sam Wormley
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- Re: Google rips me off again!!!!!!!, Tom Potter
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Europe and NASA team up on Mars, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Anyone know about those little round batteries...?, John Polasek
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Gravity as Space Push, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Gravity as Space Push, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Gravity as Space Push,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Gravity as Space Push,
BURT
- Re: Gravity as Space Push, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Gravity as Space Push, BURT
- Re: Gravity as Space Push, BURT
- Re: Gravity as Space Push,
BURT
- Re: Gravity as Space Push, rwjefferson
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?,
Tom Potter
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Tom Potter
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Sam Wormley
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Tom Potter
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Ace0f_5pades
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Ace0f_5pades
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Y.Porat
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?,
tadchem
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?,
Androcles
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Ace0f_5pades
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?,
Androcles
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Ace0f_5pades
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Ace0f_5pades
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?, Ace0f_5pades
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms),
Jan Panteltje
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms),
alien8er
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms),
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), alien8er
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), hanson
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), hanson
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms),
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms),
Sam Wormley
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms),
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), Sam Wormley
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), Sam Wormley
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), Sam Wormley
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms),
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms),
Paul Cardinale
- Re: What if (on Mars great dust Storms), G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Periodic table is concentric rings of sixteen., Sam Wormley
- Re: "General Relativity Examined", Y.Porat
- Re: "General Relativity Examined", Uncle Al
- Re: "The Einstein Hoax", Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- "The Einstein Hoax",
Deknar
- Re: "The Einstein Hoax", Sam Wormley
- Re: "The Einstein Hoax", Uncle Al
- Re: Thought experiment on the Colors, Cwatters
- Re: Thought experiment on the Colors, Sam Wormley
- Re: Thought experiment on the Colors, Dwib
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?,
Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Sam Wormley
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, tj Frazir
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?,
Richard Herring
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Androcles
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Richard Herring
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Richard Herring
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, Tom Potter
- Message not available
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?, tj Frazir
- Message not available
- Re: ?Google rules, who's poured more money into useNet ?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: What if (on Event Horizon),
Uncle Al
- Re: What if (on Event Horizon), G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?,
M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Sam Wormley
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Sam Wormley
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?,
M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, PD
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?,
Matthew Lybanon
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?,
M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Sam Wormley
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Sam Wormley
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Sam Wormley
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Benj
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Androcles
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, tadchem
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Sam Wormley
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?,
Androcles
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Sam Wormley
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, PD
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?,
M.Parker
- Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?, Rock Brentwood
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, M.Parker
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: we are living in a colorful world,
zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, M.Parker
- Re: we are living in a colorful world,
Tom Potter
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, M.Parker
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, Androcles
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, Henry
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, tadchem
- Re: we are living in a colorful world,
John Bailey
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, M.Parker
- Re: we are living in a colorful world,
Sam Wormley
- Re: we are living in a colorful world,
M.Parker
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, Sam Wormley
- Re: we are living in a colorful world,
M.Parker
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, dlzc
- Re: we are living in a colorful world, Uncle Al
- Re: Torque induced by multi-axis rotation,
Chris W
- Re: Torque induced by multi-axis rotation,
Tom Del Rosso
- Re: Torque induced by multi-axis rotation, runswithbigdogs
- Re: Torque induced by multi-axis rotation,
Tom Del Rosso
- Re: Torque induced by multi-axis rotation, Androcles
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Androcles
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, BURT
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Y.Porat
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Y.Porat
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, PD
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Aetherist
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, PD
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, PD
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, PD
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Y.Porat
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Message not available
- Re: ? The gravitational field has negative energy. ? ?? Stephen Hawking, eric gisse
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, PD
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Y.Porat
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???,
Y.Porat
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Is ther in truth, no mass???, Sam Wormley
- Re: How to find out the Mass of the Heavenly Bodies?, Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: How to find out the Mass of the Heavenly Bodies?, Sam Wormley
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: How to find out the Mass of the Heavenly Bodies?, John Polasek
- Re: Gravity is a result of matter interacting with an omnidirectional flow., Sam Wormley
- Re: Gravity is a result of matter interacting with an omnidirectional flow., Uncle Al
- Re: Gravity is a result of matter interacting with an omnidirectional flow., BradGuth
- Re: Gravity is a result of matter interacting with an omnidirectional flow., Jim Black
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: When mankind dies, Uncle Al
- Re: Photon may not have zero charge,
guskz
- Re: Photon may not have zero charge, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity, Sam Wormley
- Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity, hanson
- Re: Snow on Mars!,
BradGuth
- Re: Snow on Mars!, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Continuity equation?,
Androcles
- Re: Continuity equation?,
pApAk
- Re: Continuity equation?, Androcles
- Re: Continuity equation?,
pApAk
- Re: Photon in a Wave,
john240509
- Re: Photon in a Wave,
john240509
- Re: Photon in a Wave, Androcles
- Re: Photon in a Wave, john240509
- Re: Photon in a Wave, Androcles
- Re: Photon in a Wave, runswithbigdogs
- Re: Photon in a Wave,
john240509
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Photon in a Wave, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Photon in a Wave,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Photon in a Wave,
BURT
- Re: Photon in a Wave, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: Photon in a Wave,
BURT
- Re: Ye vipers Ye generation of hypocrites, Mistress Helios
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Eric Gisse
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Sam Wormley
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Androcles
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Tom Potter
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World, Sam Wormley
- Re: Welcome to Google's Brave New World,
Tom Potter
- <Possible follow-ups>
- test bank for South-Western Federal Taxation 2010: Individual Income Taxes 33rd Edition William Hoffman, James E. Smith, Eugene Willis tb, soltbcollector@xxxxxxxxxxx
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Solutions manual for The Economics of Money,Banking,and Financial Market 8th edition by Frederic S. Mishkin solutions manual, solstudent@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Androcles
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures,
jimp
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures,
Marvin the Martian
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Cwatters
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Hugh Oxford
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Androcles
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, jimp
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Marvin the Martian
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Cwatters
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Marvin the Martian
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, jimp
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Marvin the Martian
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, jimp
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Marvin the Martian
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, jimp
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures,
Marvin the Martian
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Uncle Al
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, tadchem
- Re: Generating steam at low temperatures, Sam Wormley
- Re: Golf Swing Question, tadchem
- Re: Golf Swing Question, Androcles
- Re: Golf Swing Question, Cwatters
- Re: Try this with Google,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Try this with Google, Tom Potter
- Re: A better Hubble Space Telescope for much less money., Sam Wormley
- Re: A better Hubble Space Telescope for much less money., Sam Wormley
- Re: A better Hubble Space Telescope for much less money., Uncle Al
- Re: A better Hubble Space Telescope for much less money., Eric Gisse
- Re: Link Force and Torque calculations, Androcles
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Albert Einstein a thief, a liar and a plagiarist, gabydewilde
- Re: Alan Guth bags Isaac Newton medal,
John Polasek
- Re: Alan Guth bags Isaac Newton medal, Sam Wormley
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Alan Guth bags Isaac Newton medal, Sam Wormley
- Re: Alan Guth bags Isaac Newton medal,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Alan Guth bags Isaac Newton medal, John Park
- Re: Alan Guth bags Isaac Newton medal, Sam Wormley
- Re: Alan Guth bags Isaac Newton medal, Sam Wormley
- Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics",
Uncle Al
- Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics", gabydewilde
- Re: Schrodinger's cat versus Darwin, Androcles
- Re: "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website", Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website", Desolc
- Re: where did the big bang start?, Rock Brentwood
- Re: The quantum life, Jan Panteltje
- Re: The quantum life,
tadchem
- Re: The quantum life,
Mistress Helios
- Re: The quantum life, Mahipal
- Re: The quantum life, tadchem
- Re: The quantum life,
Mistress Helios
- Re: definition of force,
Sam Wormley
- Re: definition of force,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: definition of force, Sam Wormley
- Re: definition of force, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: definition of force, Sam Wormley
- Re: definition of force, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: definition of force, Sam Wormley
- Re: definition of force, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: definition of force, Sam Wormley
- Re: definition of force, BURT
- Re: definition of force,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: How to calculate this?, Dave Typinski
- Re: "Space, Vacuum, and the Aether", Uncle Al
- Re: Is Global Warming Caused By Man?, Uncle Al
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Is Global Warming Caused By Man?, Diap
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Damped 3D Lissajous Figures, free Wolfram products., andy everett
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: LHC's Atlas collider can create a black hole, tj Frazir
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, tj Frazir
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
tj Frazir
- Message not available
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, tj Frazir
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, tj Frazir
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Sam Wormley
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles,
BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, Darwin123
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, BURT
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: flipping of earth's poles, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?,
Sam Wormley
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, Sam Wormley
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, Sam Wormley
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, hanson
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?,
Tom Potter
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, Sam Wormley
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, Tom Potter
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, Sam Wormley
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, Sam Wormley
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, Sam Wormley
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?,
G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: when is the CERN collider to be up and running?, Sam Wormley
- Re: Accelerating Universe is insult to Relativity, Sam Wormley
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, Uncle Ben
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, PeterD
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, osr
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, Androcles
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, George Herold
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, Uncle Al
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, dlzc
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, xxein
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, whit3rd
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, G=EMC^2 Glazier
- Re: 4 Questions on Light, Richard Tobin
- Re: Antigravity,
Eric Gisse
- Re: Antigravity,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Antigravity, Eric Gisse
- Re: Antigravity, Paul Cardinale
- Re: Antigravity, BURT
- Re: Antigravity,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Antigravity,
tadchem
- Re: Antigravity, Androcles
- Re: new quantum mechanics?,
guskz
- Re: new quantum mechanics?,
Mistress Helios
- Re: new quantum mechanics?, guskz
- Re: new quantum mechanics?, Mistress Helios
- Re: new quantum mechanics?,
Mistress Helios
- Re: Michelson-Morley and the Aether, Aetherist
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Michelson-Morley and the Aether,
Uncle Al
- Re: Michelson-Morley and the Aether, Aetherist
- Re: Higgs Boson, Uncle Al
- Re: Higgs Boson,
Sam Wormley
- Re: Higgs Boson,
hume
- Re: Higgs Boson, Sam Wormley
- Re: Higgs Boson, G. L. Bradford
- Re: Higgs Boson, Sam Wormley
- Re: Higgs Boson, G. L. Bradford
- Re: Higgs Boson,
hume
- Re: Higgs Boson,
PD
- Re: Higgs Boson, hume
- Re: Higgs Boson, Michael J. Strickland
Loading
