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 » Particle
Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4 [46 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

Bill Hobba wrote:
Quote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150448853.540343.65660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.

Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L).

That is how we model time. Physically time is what a clock reads where
clock is not even given an exact precise definition. If you want to go
further than that post on a philosophy forum. As to what a philosopher
thinks of it see
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'

The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames

Experimentally refuted by for example experiments with atomic clocks on
planes.

Bill

Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

GSS
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

In article <1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

GSS

Not only does time change, its rate of change has been successfully
measured. It is very small though - on a par with your understanding of
modern physics.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

StinkingCunt Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:



Quote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships?

<rest snipped , way too idiotic for young children>
Quote:



Gurcharn Sandhu, ever herad of the Ives Stilwell experiment, you
cretinoid? No? Then go f*** yourself.
Back to top
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

GSS wrote:
Quote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships?

If you want to examine your beliefs, you are not doing physics. To those
of us doing physics, _measurements_ are important, not beliefs. Clocks
have been _measured_ to vary in tick rate when placed in planes and
satellites, as compared to a standard clock such as USNO. We don't have
suitable clocks and space ships to test, but there's no reason to expect
they would be any different.


Quote:
Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!!

Your "imagination" is likewise not physics. The world being more
complicated than you can imagine merely indicates a lack of imagination
on your part, not any problem with the world, or with other people's
understanding of it. <shrug>


Quote:
On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

Within limits, one can arrange to do this, given enough _knowledge_ and
suitable equipment. For instance, the GPS does precisely this in the
neighborhood of earth (for technical reasons, GPS time differs from UTC,
but the principle is the same). This depends on gravity being "small"
and the volume of spacetime for which it is attempted being "small" in a
different sense. Suitable corrections must be made to raw clock readings
to obtain the coordinate time, because the clocks respond to physical
conditions that are abstracted away in the coordinate system.


Tom Roberts
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

In article <1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
go with it?

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
Mike1
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

dda1 wrote:
Quote:
StinkingCunt Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:



Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships?

rest snipped , way too idiotic for young children



Gurcharn Sandhu, ever herad of the Ives Stilwell experiment, you
cretinoid? No? Then go f*** yourself.

He shouldn't go to Santa Clara I heard it's a gay place.

Mike
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Bill Hobba wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150448853.540343.65660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion
of
time.

Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L).

That is how we model time. Physically time is what a clock reads where
clock is not even given an exact precise definition. If you want to go
further than that post on a philosophy forum. As to what a philosopher
thinks of it see
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"?
As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started,
is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what
we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this
clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying.
They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient,
not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the
only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we
are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is
what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'

The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames

Experimentally refuted by for example experiments with atomic clocks on
planes.

Bill

Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

There is no such clock avaliable that can have the same rate of passage of
clock seconds in different frames. The purpose of SRT is to find the clock
value of an observer's clock second in terms of the clock value in the
observed frame. However, SRT is incomplete. IRT is complete. The following
link gives a description of IRT (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf

Ken Seto
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

ken setothe Patented Cretin wrote:
Quote:
However, SRT is incomplete. IRT is complete.


Yes, Ken Seto is a complete cretin.
Back to top
actionintegral@yahoo.com1
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:

Quote:
The use of proper time:

...is rejected in the last paragraph.

Sue...

Ok - that is what I thought the author was saying, but I couldn't find
any motivation in the
text. It seemed to be just stating in the text.

On the other hand, this is the second time you have mentioned
"imaginary time". Can you provide a link that gives me more detail? I'm
interested in this concept.
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

Tom Roberts wrote:
Quote:
GSS wrote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships?

If you want to examine your beliefs, you are not doing physics.

To question one's deep seated beliefs and dogmas is the beginning of
Philosophy. And Philosophy must be the guiding spirit while doing
Physics.

Quote:
To those
of us doing physics, _measurements_ are important, not beliefs. Clocks
have been _measured_ to vary in tick rate when placed in planes and
satellites, as compared to a standard clock such as USNO. We don't have
suitable clocks and space ships to test, but there's no reason to expect
they would be any different.

The prime reason is the invalidity of second postulate of SR.
The final test is being planned in PARCS project.

Quote:
Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!!

Your "imagination" is likewise not physics.

The imagination is akin to a computer simulation of a situation or
process. If you don't have necessary information with you about the
relevant situation or process, you cannot imagine that situation or
process. And acquiring relevant information is the preliminary step in
doing Physics. If you are doing Physics without imagination then 'God'
save the Physics.

Quote:
The world being more
complicated than you can imagine merely indicates a lack of imagination
on your part, not any problem with the world, or with other people's
understanding of it. <shrug


On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

Within limits, one can arrange to do this, given enough _knowledge_ and
suitable equipment. For instance, the GPS does precisely this in the
neighborhood of earth (for technical reasons, GPS time differs from UTC,
but the principle is the same). This depends on gravity being "small"
and the volume of spacetime for which it is attempted being "small" in a
different sense.
Suitable corrections must be made to raw clock readings
to obtain the coordinate time, because the clocks respond to physical
conditions that are abstracted away in the coordinate system.

In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
(a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
(b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
(c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
(d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
processing?

Your specific detailed reply will be highly appreciated.

GSS
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

In article <1150728127.878868.31210@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
(a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
(b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
(c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
(d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
processing?

Your specific detailed reply will be highly appreciated.

Since it is the rate of time that is affected by motion/gravitational
potential well - this is not a question of the clock being adjusted -
it is a case of comparing the two clocks to see.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

actionintegral@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:

The use of proper time:

...is rejected in the last paragraph.

Sue...

Ok - that is what I thought the author was saying, but I couldn't find
any motivation in the
text. It seemed to be just stating in the text.

On the other hand, this is the second time you have mentioned
"imaginary time". Can you provide a link that gives me more detail? I'm
interested in this concept.

This is one of the best known examples and there are
thousands of tutorial type pages you can google for
if you want better pictures, animations calculatiors etc:

<< Understanding the relationship between these three quantities lies
at the heart of understanding power engineering. The mathematical
relationship among them can be represented by vectors and is typically
expressed using complex numbers

S = P + jQ (where j is the imaginary unit)

This complex value S is often referred to as the complex power.

Consider an ideal alternating current (AC) circuit consisting
of a source and a generalized load, where both the current
and voltage are sinusoidal. If the load is purely resistive,
the two quantities reverse their polarity at the same time;
the direction of energy flow does not reverse; and only real
power flows. If the load is purely inductive or capacitive, then
the voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase (for a
capacitor, current leads voltage; for an inductor, current
lags voltage) and there is no net power flow. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_power

What you should notice is where energy is moving
spatialy, (energy is closely related to time), we
use an imaginary time when the energy is not
where we can easily measure or quantify it. >>

The AC circuit examples are a 2 dimensional example.
Minkowski space is a 3d + 1t example.

Conveinenly, the imaginary trignometry operator above
shares many of the same properties when applied
to probabily and statistics so you will see it there
too. Feynman even mixes the two types to derive
probabilty amplitudes that predict photon absorption
for paths that are described classically.

http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html

Space time
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html

Converting from Lorenz to 3d +1t (Coulomb or 'radiation' gauge)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

Time gets very real when you have to pay for a heavy
foot on the accelerator of you car but many calculations
can be simplied when we can take advantage of its
'imaginary' qualities. It is a little more 'maleable' than
space or mass so is the first thing to get picked on
when trying to simplify equations.

Sue...
Back to top
Bill Hobba
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:57 am    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Bill Hobba wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150448853.540343.65660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.

Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L).

That is how we model time. Physically time is what a clock reads where
clock is not even given an exact precise definition. If you want to go
further than that post on a philosophy forum. As to what a philosopher
thinks of it see
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"?
As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this
clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying.
They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient,
not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the
only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'

The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames

Experimentally refuted by for example experiments with atomic clocks on
planes.

Bill

Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships?

I never believed that. Proper time is invariant.

Quote:
Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!!

Since that is not what relativity says your query is silly.

Quote:
On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

There is such a measure - it is called proper time.

Bill

Quote:

GSS
Back to top
Bill Hobba
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:05 am    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150728127.878868.31210@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships?

If you want to examine your beliefs, you are not doing physics.

To question one's deep seated beliefs and dogmas is the beginning of
Philosophy. And Philosophy must be the guiding spirit while doing
Physics.

It sure is - at its basis is correspondence experiment.

Quote:

To those
of us doing physics, _measurements_ are important, not beliefs. Clocks
have been _measured_ to vary in tick rate when placed in planes and
satellites, as compared to a standard clock such as USNO. We don't have
suitable clocks and space ships to test, but there's no reason to expect
they would be any different.

The prime reason is the invalidity of second postulate of SR.

Since SR does not even require it anymore all your doing is throwing up
strawmen

Quote:
The final test is being planned in PARCS project.

Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!!

Your "imagination" is likewise not physics.

The imagination is akin to a computer simulation of a situation or
process. If you don't have necessary information with you about the
relevant situation or process, you cannot imagine that situation or
process. And acquiring relevant information is the preliminary step in
doing Physics. If you are doing Physics without imagination then 'God'
save the Physics.

Your logic is erroneous - saying imagination is not physics does not imply
that physics does not use imagination.

Quote:

The world being more
complicated than you can imagine merely indicates a lack of imagination
on your part, not any problem with the world, or with other people's
understanding of it. <shrug


On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

Within limits, one can arrange to do this, given enough _knowledge_ and
suitable equipment. For instance, the GPS does precisely this in the
neighborhood of earth (for technical reasons, GPS time differs from UTC,
but the principle is the same). This depends on gravity being "small"
and the volume of spacetime for which it is attempted being "small" in a
different sense.
Suitable corrections must be made to raw clock readings
to obtain the coordinate time, because the clocks respond to physical
conditions that are abstracted away in the coordinate system.

In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
(a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
(b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
(c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
(d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
processing?

QED predicts their behavior perfectly. A clocks proper time is invariant.

Quote:

Your specific detailed reply will be highly appreciated.


It may be appreciated by you never take it on board.

Bill

Quote:

GSS
Back to top
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:05 am    Post subject: Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity Reply with quote

GSS wrote:
Quote:
In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
(a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
(b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
(c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
(d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
processing?

This is not my opinion, this is my _knowledge_ based on reading
documents about the GPS: In the GPS satellites the digital divider is
modified from its standard value so that the output of the clock
corresponds to GPS time in the ECI frame, as long as the clock is in its
designated orbit. The satellite includes additional circuitry that
permits it to accept uploaded corrections from the ground and to
transmit them to GPS receivers along with its timing signals and orbit
parameters.


Tom Roberts
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4 [46 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:40 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
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 "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm
No new posts "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde New Theories 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm
No new posts "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Particle 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm
No new posts "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Relativity 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 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: 0.0415s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0059s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]