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
puzzle in relativity
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [34 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Bill Snyder
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:12 pm    Post subject: Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole. Reply with quote

On 13 Jul 2006 13:27:08 GMT, Jeff…Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:

Quote:
Hi Bill_Snyder,
Including length-contraction but ignoring time-dilation and Relativistic_Mass
is a Fuck_Up not a thought-experiment.

Hi Jerk_Wad_Underscore_Queen,

Then just assume that the hammer's speed in the rest frame results in
an identical time dilation and enough momentum for it to do the job.
Of course, this has the disadvantage that it doesn't allow you to
weasel out of examining the situation at all . . .
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:07 pm    Post subject: Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole. Reply with quote

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_13_f2bt@Cotse.NET...
Quote:
Hi Cafeinst, The Relativistic_Mass of the stunt-men would be
astronomical,
it'd take a hypernova to pound them into that hole in the ice;
so the size of the hole is of no consequence... zip, zero, nada.

Jeff, have you been taking stupid pills today?
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject: Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole. Reply with quote

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_13_SRuF@Cotse.NET...
Quote:
Hi Bill_Snyder,
Including length-contraction but ignoring time-dilation and
Relativistic_Mass
is a Fuck_Up not a thought-experiment.

You_Need_More_Under_sco_res_In_You_r_po_st_s
Back to top
Bill Snyder
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole. Reply with quote

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:07:12 +0100, "T Wake"
<Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_13_f2bt@Cotse.NET...
Hi Cafeinst, The Relativistic_Mass of the stunt-men would be
astronomical,
it'd take a hypernova to pound them into that hole in the ice;
so the size of the hole is of no consequence... zip, zero, nada.

Jeff, have you been taking stupid pills today?

Ever heard the expression "on a natural high?"


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Back to top
tadchem
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:38 pm    Post subject: OT: (was Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole.) Reply with quote

Bill Snyder wrote:

I used to work with a Bill Snyder in Denver 5-6 years ago. You?

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Back to top
Bill Snyder
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:55 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: (was Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole.) Reply with quote

On 13 Jul 2006 13:38:30 -0700, "tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

Bill Snyder wrote:

I used to work with a Bill Snyder in Denver 5-6 years ago. You?

Nope, never even been there.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:59 pm    Post subject: Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole. Reply with quote

In article <cIOdnQEvb5p-BCvZRVnytQ@pipex.net>, T Wake
<Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Quote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_13_f2bt@Cotse.NET...
Hi Cafeinst, The Relativistic_Mass of the stunt-men would be
astronomical,
it'd take a hypernova to pound them into that hole in the ice;
so the size of the hole is of no consequence... zip, zero, nada.

Jeff, have you been taking stupid pills today?

today?

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:54 pm    Post subject: Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole. Reply with quote

Jeff...Relf wrote:
Quote:
Hi Cafeinst, The Relativistic_Mass of the stunt-men would be astronomical,
it'd take a hypernova to pound them into that hole in the ice;
so the size of the hole is of no consequence... zip, zero, nada.

"Hypernova"!
Cool word.
Zero meaning, but cool word.
I suppose that's par for the course for Jeff.

PD
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:32 pm    Post subject: Re: It'd take a hypernova to pound the stunt-men into the hole. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152827641.149265.265380@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Cafeinst, The Relativistic_Mass of the stunt-men would be
astronomical,
it'd take a hypernova to pound them into that hole in the ice;
so the size of the hole is of no consequence... zip, zero, nada.

"Hypernova"!
Cool word.
Zero meaning, but cool word.
I suppose that's par for the course for Jeff.


Sadly true Smile
Back to top
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:00 pm    Post subject: Re: puzzle in relativity Reply with quote

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:11:09 -0700, cafeinst wrote:

Quote:
I found this here:
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8956/problems/probs.htm

"Five stuntmen are riding upon a large sled across an icy pond. In the
center of the pond is a hole exactly the same size as the sled, and the
stuntmen are travelling towards it at near the speed of light. When they
reach the hole, a man standing beside the hole hits the sled with a
sledgehammer to drive it into the hole. According to the stuntmen, the
hole decreases in length due to the effects of special relativity, and
thus they slide over and do not fall in. But the man standing beside the
hole sees the length of the sled decrease due to relativity, and so the
sled slips easily into the hole. Clearly the stuntmen or the hammer man
cannot both be right, so what happens?"

First, the delta-momentum for any speed where relativistic effects are
going to be greater than the radius of a molecule is so ridiculously high
that the stuntmen would either fly off the sled, squish into a
pulp on the sled, or get strangled by their restraints.

Or one can hypothesize a monster sled -- say, 1 km in length -- which
would take a very large sledgehammer to drive anywhere, let alone into a
sufficiently-sized hole.

There are also issues with the flexing of said sled when the hammer hits
it. But OK, let's crunch some numbers.

If one assumes a 10m-length iron sled weighing 2 metric tonnes moving\
30 m/s (that's 67 mph, about the speed of an automobile on US public
highways), that translates into a momentum of 60,000 kg-s, and an energy
of 0.9 MJ. The length shrinkage of such a sled would be on the order of
10^-6, mostly because of lightspeed observation effects; if one
compensates for such effects, the gamma is on the order of (1 + 5*10^-15),
or a length variance of about 5 * 10^-14 m. Since the size of a molecule
is on the order of 10^-10 m, we're not even close to making a dent in the
hole here.

It would be interesting to contemplate replacing the far side of the hole
with a barrier; the sled hits the barrier, compresses slightly, falls
through the hole, and probably gets stuck as it is heated slightly by the
collision. If I'm using {C_P}{H} correctly (see
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/thdyn.html ), a
mole of iron is about 55.845g, and therefore one is working with 35813
moles, or a temperature rise of about 1 degree Celsius throughout the
entire sled -- though I for one know thermodynamics doesn't work quite
that way anyway; a far more likely result is a crumpling of the sled,
damage/destruction of the far barrier, or both.

If the sled crumples, it can easily fall through the hole.
Bingo...problem solved in both reference frames, at least at speeds which
are lower than about 1.2 km/s, which will melt the sled if all of that
energy is converted into heating the sled, since iron melts at 1538 C (the
initial temperature of the sled being assumed 0C).

And then there's the problem of the heated remains of the sled melting the
ice.

Not exactly the best problem specification, in my opinion. :-)

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:04 pm    Post subject: Re: puzzle in relativity Reply with quote

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.15.20.33.27.747137@earthlink.net...
| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:11:09 -0700, cafeinst wrote:
|
| > I found this here:
| > http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8956/problems/probs.htm
| >
| > "Five stuntmen are riding upon a large sled across an icy pond. In the
| > center of the pond is a hole exactly the same size as the sled, and the
| > stuntmen are travelling towards it at near the speed of light. When they
| > reach the hole, a man standing beside the hole hits the sled with a
| > sledgehammer to drive it into the hole. According to the stuntmen, the
| > hole decreases in length due to the effects of special relativity, and
| > thus they slide over and do not fall in. But the man standing beside the
| > hole sees the length of the sled decrease due to relativity, and so the
| > sled slips easily into the hole. Clearly the stuntmen or the hammer man
| > cannot both be right, so what happens?"
|
| First, the delta-momentum for any speed where relativistic effects are
| going to be greater than the radius of a molecule is so ridiculously high

Vague. What is the threshold for an effect to change from Newtonian
to relativistic?
[rest snipped]

Androcles.
Back to top
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:00 am    Post subject: Re: puzzle in relativity Reply with quote

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:04:30 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:

Quote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.15.20.33.27.747137@earthlink.net...
| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:11:09 -0700, cafeinst wrote:
|
| > I found this here:
| > http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8956/problems/probs.htm
|
| > "Five stuntmen are riding upon a large sled across an icy pond. In the
| > center of the pond is a hole exactly the same size as the sled, and
| > the stuntmen are travelling towards it at near the speed of light.
| > When they reach the hole, a man standing beside the hole hits the sled
| > with a sledgehammer to drive it into the hole. According to the
| > stuntmen, the hole decreases in length due to the effects of special
| > relativity, and thus they slide over and do not fall in. But the man
| > standing beside the hole sees the length of the sled decrease due to
| > relativity, and so the sled slips easily into the hole. Clearly the
| > stuntmen or the hammer man cannot both be right, so what happens?"
|
| First, the delta-momentum for any speed where relativistic effects are
| going to be greater than the radius of a molecule is so ridiculously
| high

Vague. What is the threshold for an effect to change from Newtonian to
relativistic?

All effects are relativistic. I did say "greater than the radius of a
molecule". However, your example of moving towards a candle will
definitely slow down one's wristwatch (as observed by someone next to the
candle) -- although the amount of slowdown is ridiculously small for
someone moving at 3 m/s = 10^-8 c.

It would take some doing to measure something that varies from
Newtonianism by a ratio of approximately (1 + 5 * 10^-17). The Twin
Paradox does apply, but one gets the following:

3 meters distance @ 3 m/s

time at candle: 2.00000000000000000000 s
time at mover: 1.99999999999999994999 s

Put another way, it would take 2 * 10^16 repetitions or 4 * 10^16 seconds,
or about 1.2675 billion years, to see a delta of 1 second with this
version of the Twin Paradox.

[rest snipped]

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:38 am    Post subject: Re: puzzle in relativity Reply with quote

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.01.08.27.22076@earthlink.net...
| On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:04:30 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.15.20.33.27.747137@earthlink.net...
| > | On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:11:09 -0700, cafeinst wrote:
| > |
| > | > I found this here:
| > | >
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8956/problems/probs.htm
| > | >
| > | > "Five stuntmen are riding upon a large sled across an icy pond. In
the
| > | > center of the pond is a hole exactly the same size as the sled, and
| > | > the stuntmen are travelling towards it at near the speed of light.
| > | > When they reach the hole, a man standing beside the hole hits the
sled
| > | > with a sledgehammer to drive it into the hole. According to the
| > | > stuntmen, the hole decreases in length due to the effects of special
| > | > relativity, and thus they slide over and do not fall in. But the man
| > | > standing beside the hole sees the length of the sled decrease due to
| > | > relativity, and so the sled slips easily into the hole. Clearly the
| > | > stuntmen or the hammer man cannot both be right, so what happens?"
| > |
| > | First, the delta-momentum for any speed where relativistic effects are
| > | going to be greater than the radius of a molecule is so ridiculously
| > | high
| >
| > Vague. What is the threshold for an effect to change from Newtonian to
| > relativistic?
|
| All effects are relativistic.

Thank you.


I did say "greater than the radius of a
| molecule". However, your example of moving towards a candle will
| definitely slow down one's wristwatch (as observed by someone next to the
| candle) -- although the amount of slowdown is ridiculously small for
| someone moving at 3 m/s = 10^-8 c.

He walks away from another candle simultanously with walking toward the
first.
His ridiculous wrist watch needs 6 ridiculous hands, one ridiculous molecule
apart,
although the separation of the candles is constant and not ridiculous.
[rest snipped]
Androcles
Back to top
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:00 pm    Post subject: Re: puzzle in relativity Reply with quote

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:38:25 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:

Quote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.01.08.27.22076@earthlink.net...
| On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:04:30 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
|
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.15.20.33.27.747137@earthlink.net...
| > | On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:11:09 -0700, cafeinst wrote:
| > |
| > | > I found this here:
| > |
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8956/problems/probs.htm
| > |
| > | > "Five stuntmen are riding upon a large sled across an icy pond. In
the
| > | > center of the pond is a hole exactly the same size as the sled,
| > | > and the stuntmen are travelling towards it at near the speed of
| > | > light. When they reach the hole, a man standing beside the hole
| > | > hits the
sled
| > | > with a sledgehammer to drive it into the hole. According to the
| > | > stuntmen, the hole decreases in length due to the effects of
| > | > special relativity, and thus they slide over and do not fall in.
| > | > But the man standing beside the hole sees the length of the sled
| > | > decrease due to relativity, and so the sled slips easily into the
| > | > hole. Clearly the stuntmen or the hammer man cannot both be right,
| > | > so what happens?"
| > |
| > | First, the delta-momentum for any speed where relativistic effects
| > | are going to be greater than the radius of a molecule is so
| > | ridiculously high
|
| > Vague. What is the threshold for an effect to change from Newtonian to
| > relativistic?
|
| All effects are relativistic.

Thank you.


I did say "greater than the radius of a
| molecule". However, your example of moving towards a candle will
| definitely slow down one's wristwatch (as observed by someone next to
| the candle) -- although the amount of slowdown is ridiculously small for
| someone moving at 3 m/s = 10^-8 c.

He walks away from another candle simultanously with walking toward the
first.
His ridiculous wrist watch needs 6 ridiculous hands, one ridiculous
molecule apart,
although the separation of the candles is constant and not ridiculous.

The separation of the candles is affected as well. The walker will
measure, if he bothers to, a distance which will vary from the candles'
own measurement between themselves. This variance will of course be about
5 * 10^-17 at the contemplated velocities, with the candles being 3m apart.

So now we're talking 6 ridiculous stopwatch/wristwatch sweep hands and 2
ridiculous rulers.

Make of it what you will, and in any event the measurement runs into minor
difficulties in its own right because the measurer is moving; even in
Newtonian space this requires some work.

If one changes the candles to 30m apart (as measured by the
candles themselves, or nonmoving observers next thereto in lieu thereof --
it's now a big dance hall Smile ), and the the moving observer measures the
distance from candle 1 when the observer has walked therefrom 2 seconds,
he gets a distance of 6 m; if the observer doesn't simultaneously measure
the distance to the second candle, he gets a discrepancy (if he waits
until 5 seconds, he gets 15m to the second candle, for a total distance of
21m -- 9m off, or 3x his velocity).

There is also the further complication that lightspeed is not finite; as
you can guess from the above I elided over that in the Newtonian
explanation. If the user is equipped with passive light-gathering
devices, and is in Newtonian space 2 seconds out, the light from candle 1
will reach him after approximately 20 ns (2 * 10^-Cool, and the light from
candle 2 will take about 80 ns. We now have a 60 ns discrepancy between
candle-light, and since the user is moving 3 m/s, he will mismeasure the
distance by 180 nm, about 3/10 the wavelength of the yellow light of the
candle, even though he took great pains to attempt the measurement
simultaneously.

The best I can do in this area is to simply allow the observer to continue
his walk, and, assuming the observer knows his velocity accurately -- he
can determine such with his own ruler, a small mirror, and either one of
the candles -- the velocity is simply given by your favorite formula, x/t.
In this case, both x and t are in the frame of the moving observer, which
makes the measurement at least theoretically correct.

The walking observer, however, will see a curious phenomenon, if he
compares notes with the candle observers later on; t is too small by
1/gamma. In other words, instead of 10 seconds, he will take
10*sqrt(1-(10^-Cool^2) seconds or 9.99999999999999949999999... seconds or
10 - 5.0000000000025030*10^-16 seconds to reach candle 2. He will
therefore mismeasure the distance by about 1.5 * 10^-15 m -- which is so
small a proton would dwarf it, and a hydrogen molecule would be an
Earthball next to a dust spec, comparatively speaking.

But get enough dust, and one has to drag out the vacuum cleaner. :-)

Quote:
[rest snipped]
Androcles

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:33 pm    Post subject: Re: puzzle in relativity Reply with quote

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.16.12.35.332064@earthlink.net...
| On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:38:25 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.16.01.08.27.22076@earthlink.net...
| > | On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:04:30 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2006.07.15.20.33.27.747137@earthlink.net...
| > | > | On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:11:09 -0700, cafeinst wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | > I found this here:
| > | > | >
| > http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8956/problems/probs.htm
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Five stuntmen are riding upon a large sled across an icy pond.
In
| > the
| > | > | > center of the pond is a hole exactly the same size as the sled,
| > | > | > and the stuntmen are travelling towards it at near the speed of
| > | > | > light. When they reach the hole, a man standing beside the hole
| > | > | > hits the
| > sled
| > | > | > with a sledgehammer to drive it into the hole. According to the
| > | > | > stuntmen, the hole decreases in length due to the effects of
| > | > | > special relativity, and thus they slide over and do not fall in.
| > | > | > But the man standing beside the hole sees the length of the sled
| > | > | > decrease due to relativity, and so the sled slips easily into
the
| > | > | > hole. Clearly the stuntmen or the hammer man cannot both be
right,
| > | > | > so what happens?"
| > | > |
| > | > | First, the delta-momentum for any speed where relativistic effects
| > | > | are going to be greater than the radius of a molecule is so
| > | > | ridiculously high
| > | >
| > | > Vague. What is the threshold for an effect to change from Newtonian
to
| > | > relativistic?
| > |
| > | All effects are relativistic.
| >
| > Thank you.
| >
| >
| > I did say "greater than the radius of a
| > | molecule". However, your example of moving towards a candle will
| > | definitely slow down one's wristwatch (as observed by someone next to
| > | the candle) -- although the amount of slowdown is ridiculously small
for
| > | someone moving at 3 m/s = 10^-8 c.
| >
| > He walks away from another candle simultanously with walking toward the
| > first.
| > His ridiculous wrist watch needs 6 ridiculous hands, one ridiculous
| > molecule apart,
| > although the separation of the candles is constant and not ridiculous.
|
| The separation of the candles is affected as well. The walker will
| measure, if he bothers to, a distance which will vary from the candles'
| own measurement between themselves.

No he won't, he'll use a tape measure.
[rest snipped]
Androcles
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [34 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:46 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Weekly Math puzzle Peter Hendriks Recreational 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:20 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 (0.0032s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]