FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Physics is dead!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 7 [98 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru


Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 10:06 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1148376523_1656@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
|
| "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| news:f5i472pn1bmoaubpv45rmc9rk21k92004j@4ax.com...
| > On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:44:04 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch>
| wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| > >news:c813725lk4accvba02ark60vebvti7m87d@4ax.com...
| > >> On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:
| > >>
| > >> >I see nonsense threads, spam in these ngs. When some ng dies, it
gets
| > >> >rotten and like rotten dead body attract flies, spammers are sitting
| on
| > >> >this dead ng.
| > >> >
| > >> >But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
| > >> >exinct like dinasauras.
| > >>
| > >> It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for
| 100
| > >years
| > >> after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams
| > >become
| > >> diagonal ones in moving frames.
| > >> The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source
| > >speed' is
| > >> totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement....yet it is
| > >worshipped
| > >> by a herd of pseudo intellectualls who have been riding on
Einsteinian
| > >> bandwaggon for years...
| > >>
| > >> The plain fact is that none of the really BIG question has been even
| > >remotely
| > >> answered by the theories of hoaxers like Einstein.
| > >>
| > >> It is also a plain fact that light takes an amount of time to travel
| from
| > >point
| > >> A to point B and the only reference light has at its inception is its
| > >source.
| > >> In the absence of an absolute spatial reference, identical photons
| emitted
| > >by
| > >> differently moving sources cannot possibly retain the same relative
| > >positions
| > >> as they travel through remote space. What credible 'physical' process
| > >could make them do that?
| > >>
| > >
| > >Easy: an absolute spatial reference (physical, not operational of
course)
| >
| > You are an aetherist.
| >
| > How and where does your aether end?
|
| You asked a question as if you had forgotten the answer and I reminded you
| of it. That's all.
| I can't help it if you are in denial, this isn't a psychiatry group (even
if
| it sometimes looks like it)!

So see a psychiatrist. I cant help it if you don't understand basic math.

Androcles.
Back to top
Dobri Karagorgov
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 3:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

yeah sure physics is dead -- dedanoe killed it!
Back to top
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 7:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

noshellswill wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 20 May 2006 17:31:20 -0700, shevek wrote:


Tom Roberts wrote:
neo wrote:
I see nonsense threads, spam in these ngs. When some ng dies, it gets
rotten and like rotten dead body attract flies, spammers are sitting on
this dead ng.
But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

Do not confuse this newsgroup with physics. Any actual resemblance
between them is strictly coincidental (Smile).

Granted, non-moderated groups have problems, and this one has more than
most.



It could be argued that if this NG has more of the problems than most,
it signifies a resurgence in popularity in the field. Although many of
the posts may be "nonsense threads", the conclusion that physics is
dead is likely the wrong one.


One may argue that ... so much 20-th century physics has been "promoted"
into engineering disciples, and so few recent, novel, compelling
experimental results have been obtained ... and OTOH bimbo_hood has become
so habitual that .......... physics went capute -- titsup -- hasta-LAvista --

One can better argue that 20 century physics has exactly zero to do
with
enginnering. and only concerns physicists idiots and their
Dynaminc Duo Spadex DNA moron friends from ADA & Bill Clinton LTD.




Quote:
except for a few starving east-Euros who can't afford a stock-broker.

nss
**********
Back to top
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 7:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:

I see nonsense threads, spam in these ngs. When some ng dies, it gets
rotten and like rotten dead body attract flies, spammers are sitting on
this dead ng.

But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for 100 years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement....yet it is worshipped
by a herd of pseudo intellectualls who have been riding on Einsteinian
bandwaggon for years...

They're not even pseudo or intellectual anything.
They're moron neo-farmer frame-draggers..
Since the only morons who say it are spys who
work for Fidel Castro.











Quote:

The plain fact is that none of the really BIG question has been even remotely
answered by the theories of hoaxers like Einstein.

It is also a plain fact that light takes an amount of time to travel from point
A to point B and the only reference light has at its inception is its source.
In the absence of an absolute spatial reference, identical photons emitted by
differently moving sources cannot possibly retain the same relative positions
as they travel through remote space. What credible 'physical' process could
make them do that?




HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 7:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Vert wrote:
Quote:
Tom roberts said:
Do not confuse this newsgroup with physics. Any actual resemblance
between them is strictly coincidental (Smile).

Granted, non-moderated groups have problems, and this one has more than
most.

Amen.
We all know who the flies are that infest this ng. The best thing to do
is just ignore them
and let them chew on each other.

As to the moderated group, it has problems also. It is controlled by
closed minded individuals whose policy is that if anyone has something
to offer other than what they believe, they are (falsely) accused of
being "too speculative" and are squelched.

As to progress, in my opinion that ng is worthless.

You are not "too speculative", you are just an idiot that doesn't even
begin to understand the law of speed composition so you invented your
own piece of s**t.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 9:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Vert wrote:
Quote:
Tom roberts said:
Do not confuse this newsgroup with physics. Any actual resemblance
between them is strictly coincidental (Smile).

Granted, non-moderated groups have problems, and this one has more than
most.

Amen.
We all know who the flies are that infest this ng. The best thing to do
is just ignore them
and let them chew on each other.

As to the moderated group, it has problems also. It is controlled by
closed minded individuals whose policy is that if anyone has something
to offer other than what they believe, they are (falsely) accused of
being "too speculative" and are squelched.

As to progress, in my opinion that ng is worthless.

OK-doke, so what are your options?
This ng is filled with noise, another one is not receptive.
You always have the option of filing for publication at a reviewed
journal.
You also have the option of self-publication at a vanity press.

None of these appeal?

I guess you're hosed, then, aren't you?

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 9:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:

I see nonsense threads, spam in these ngs. When some ng dies, it gets
rotten and like rotten dead body attract flies, spammers are sitting on
this dead ng.

But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for 100 years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Quote:
....yet it is worshipped
by a herd of pseudo intellectualls who have been riding on Einsteinian
bandwaggon for years...

The plain fact is that none of the really BIG question has been even remotely
answered by the theories of hoaxers like Einstein.

It is also a plain fact that light takes an amount of time to travel from point
A to point B and the only reference light has at its inception is its source.
In the absence of an absolute spatial reference, identical photons emitted by
differently moving sources cannot possibly retain the same relative positions
as they travel through remote space. What credible 'physical' process could
make them do that?




HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
Vert wrote:
Tom roberts said:
Do not confuse this newsgroup with physics. Any actual resemblance
between them is strictly coincidental (Smile).

Granted, non-moderated groups have problems, and this one has more than
most.

Amen.
We all know who the flies are that infest this ng. The best thing to do
is just ignore them
and let them chew on each other.

As to the moderated group, it has problems also. It is controlled by
closed minded individuals whose policy is that if anyone has something
to offer other than what they believe, they are (falsely) accused of
being "too speculative" and are squelched.

As to progress, in my opinion that ng is worthless.

OK-doke, so what are your options?
This ng is filled with noise, another one is not receptive.
You always have the option of filing for publication at a reviewed
journal.
You also have the option of self-publication at a vanity press.

None of these appeal?

I guess you're hosed, then, aren't you?

PD


Vert can't even publish in Apeiron or Galilean Electrodynamics, the
"National Enquirer" of antirelativity. All he's been able to do is to
"publish" on the Walter babin page for the mentally derranged.
I guess that Vert is too cheap to go the ego avenue of "self-publishing"
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:


But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for 100 years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical in all
frames.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
John Christiansen
science forum beginner


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 6:48 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
Quote:
On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:


But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for 100
years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams
become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source
speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical in
all
frames.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe


Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar

object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC
Quote:

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Platopes
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 152

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 7:08 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

neo wrote:
Quote:
I see nonsense threads, spam in these ngs. When some ng dies, it gets

rotten and like rotten dead body attract flies, spammers are sitting on

this dead ng.

But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be

exinct like dinasauras.

Usually the sponsored links have some discernable relationship to the
text in the OP.

Why "memory" in this case?

"After some time"?

p
Back to top
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru


Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 8:32 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:447401c2$0$11170$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
|
| "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
| news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
| > On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| >>
| >>Henri Wilson wrote:
| >>> On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:
| >>>
| >
| >>> >But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
| >>> >exinct like dinasauras.
| >>>
| >>> It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for
100
| >>> years
| >>> after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams
| >>> become
| >>> diagonal ones in moving frames.
| >>> The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source
| >>> speed' is
| >>> totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement
| >>
| >>"unscientific statement"
| >>This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
| >>waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
| >>singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
| >>that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
| >>creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
| >>confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
| >>available.
| >
| > Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical
in
| > all
| > frames.
| > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
| >
| >
| Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
| object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
| be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.
|
You haven't heard about Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Wedge-shaped
Willusionary Worbits, I can tell.

Androcles



| JC
| >
| > HW.
| > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| >
| > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
| >
|
|
Back to top
Harry
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:52 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:447401c2$0$11170$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:


But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for
100
years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams
become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source
speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical
in
all frames.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe

Nice dynamic demos, indeed much clearer than words. But I haven't discovered
what you claim to be a paradox.
It would be worthwhile if you calculate and demonstrate what happens
according to SRT. If you do it well, you should see that it works fine, and
it will end up as a nice SRT demo. If it doesn't work out, post a message
and ask what the error is. In any case it will be useful!

Quote:
Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC

Funny Babylonian speech confusion: the two of you mean entirely different
things. Which makes that conversation nonsense, but not the statements.
Not physics is dead, but communication is! ;-)

Harald
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 11:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:52:46 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:

Quote:

"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:447401c2$0$11170$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 20 May 2006 11:51:30 -0700, "neo" <0voyager0@gmail.com> wrote:


But after some time, these spammers will also go and physics will be
exinct like dinasauras.

It is true that a large part of physics has been in the doldrums for
100
years
after being sidetracked by the obvious myth that vertical light beams
become
diagonal ones in moving frames.
The claim that 'light speed is always 'c' irrespective of the source
speed' is
totally meaningless and a most unscientific statement

"unscientific statement"
This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
available.

Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical
in
all frames.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe

Nice dynamic demos, indeed much clearer than words. But I haven't discovered
what you claim to be a paradox.
It would be worthwhile if you calculate and demonstrate what happens
according to SRT. If you do it well, you should see that it works fine, and
it will end up as a nice SRT demo. If it doesn't work out, post a message
and ask what the error is. In any case it will be useful!

SR claims the beams move diagonally at c...and this causes them to take longer
to reach the top in the moving observer frame.

They don't. Whilst infinitesimal elements of a beam follow their own separate
diagonal paths in the moving frame, the beam as a whole remains vertical.
The 'ininitesimal elements' do not constitute a light beam moving at c. They
are nothing but points on a graph. They 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)
The beam takes the same time to reach the top no matter what moving observer
measures that time.

Quote:
Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC

Funny Babylonian speech confusion: the two of you mean entirely different
things. Which makes that conversation nonsense, but not the statements.
Not physics is dead, but communication is! Wink

He looks like a newcomer....so give him a chance...

He isn't aware that the 'other frames' under discussion are all moving
horizontally.

Quote:

Harald



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:22 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Wed, 24 May 2006 08:32:08 GMT, "The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f>
wrote:

Quote:

"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:447401c2$0$11170$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
|
| "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> skrev i en meddelelse
| news:o587721jj7ookkmuc7o07ee7jo070bqsrf@4ax.com...
| > On 23 May 2006 14:47:34 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

|
| >>"unscientific statement"
| >>This from a fella that says that training in the scientific method is a
| >>waste of time, that true scientists are not trained but proceed to
| >>singular contributions with only the gift of their "scientific mind",
| >>that experiments are to be done only after an act of "scientific
| >>creation" and at the hands of trained idiots, and that experimental
| >>confirmation is not required in science if a logical argument is
| >>available.
|
| > Whether you like it or not P(h)D, vertical light beams remain vertical
in
| > all
| > frames.
| > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
|
|
| Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
| object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
| be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.
|
You haven't heard about Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Wedge-shaped
Willusionary Worbits, I can tell.

.....Professional jealousy reappearing..

Quote:

Androcles



| JC
|
| > HW.
| > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|
|
|



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 7 [98 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:10 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Compare and contrast physics and chemistry parent Chem 0 Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:26 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 235) John Baez Research 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:32 pm
No new posts Writing physics for the public and other matters - parano... Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:29 pm
No new posts (OT) Moderator Vacancy Announcement: sci.physics.plasma Martin X. Moleski, SJ Relativity 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:05 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0718s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0230s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]