Re: energy and mass

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: energy and mass
De : bill.sloman (at) *nospam* ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity sci.electronics.design
Date : 09. Mar 2026, 02:52:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <10ol95q$2tjpk$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross
Finlayson:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
>
As of the latest revision of the SI, Boltzmann's
constant
is just another conversion factor between units.
>
There is no longer any physical content to it,
>
Jan
>
>
The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little
table.
>
Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the
mile,
>
Jan
>
>
Boltzmann constant is in the little leaflet in
every book on thermodynamics.
>
Often it's the only "physical constant" given.
>
The SI units are much separated from the relevant
empirical domains these days.
>
For example, "defining" the second as about the
cesium atom its hyperfine transition, and "defining"
the meter as that according to the "defined" speed
of light, results all that's defined not derived,
the System Internationale units that we all know
and love simply don't say much about the objective
reality of the quantities.
>
Nothing that you have the wit to understand?
The are a lot of steps between the optical spectrum of a
cloud of cesium
atoms and the frequency of an oscillator running slowly
enough for you
to be able to count transitions, but there is no
question
about the
objective reality of every last one of them.
>
Eh, the basis for the SI is the defined value
for a -microwave- frequency of the Cesium atom.
  From an engineering point of view a Cesium clock
is nothing but a stabilised quartz clock.
>
That "nothing but" ignores the fact that the output of the
cesium clock
has a much more stable frequency than the outputs of
regular
quartz
clocks. That's why people pay more money for them.
>
Of course, it is a stibilised quartz clock.
I thought you were proud of being an engineer,
so I adapted the description.
>
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattice 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_lattice_clock
>
Like I said, they are called 'clocks'
but for the time being they are only frequency standards.
(precisely because they cannot be used yet to stabilise a
quartz clock)
>
The process of turning a frequency standard into a
clock is
fairly
complicated but the devices are already sold as clocks.
>
 From an engineering point of view that is just being
able to
count.
>
Jan
>
>
Time is a universal parameter of most theories of mechanics,
and the useful ones.
>
But time must be a LOCAL parameter ONLY!
>
It is total bunk to assume, that an 'external' clock would
exist, which synchronizes everything in the universe.
>
Clocks don't exist to synchronise anything. They can be part
of a
local system which synchronises some local action to an event
which has been observed from that location. Granting the
bulk of
the universe is expanding away from any given point at a speed
which is increase with time and distance time dilation alone
makes the idea of perfect synchronicity untenable.
>
If nothing synchronizes remote systems, then how could we
rightfully assume, that remote systems share the same time?
>
It's a very convenient  assumption.The big bang theory has the
universe starting to expand from a very small point some 13.8
billion years ago, and what we can see of the observable
universe
is consistent with that.
>
Sure, it's convenient.
>
But is it actually true???
>
We don't seem to need a different explanation at this point.
If eventually make some observations that are inconsistent with
the
theory, we'll start looking for a better one, but the big gbang
theory seems to be true enough for all current practical purposes
>
Nature does not care about what we need.
>
Nature is as nature is, whether we like it or not.
>
>
Big bang theory suffers from a 'little' problem:
>
how would you actually create a universe from nothing?
>
Nobody said anything about creating it from nothing. The point
about
the theory is that it starts off with a large lump of
undifferentiated mass- energy that doesn't have any structure that
links it back to a preceding structure. The early stages of its
development seem to have been pretty well randomised, and if the
mechanism that created initial the lump of mass energy was merely
the
collapse of a previously existing universe we'd end up with
essential;ly the same theory.
>
My own approach was, that time is local and space is 'relative'.
>
To get such a behavior I have searched for something, which would
allow such behavior.
>
This is actually possible, if you think about a certain type of
complex numbers and a connection between them, which is also
known as
certain type of geometric algebra.
>
So, we need  a system, which allows an imaginary time 'axis' at
every
point and a realm perpendicular, which we could call time-like.
>
The result of my search was a system called 'cliiford algebra Cl_3'
and something called 'complex four vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions').
>
Now we have a point, to which a certain axis of time belongs, where
the observer is located.
>
The observer chooses, of cause, the axis of time, in respect to
which
he himself is stable and a material body.
>
Then we have a perpendicular 'hyper-sheet of the present' and in
between the past light cone.
>
The past light cone is what the observer could see, especially
in the
night sky.
>
The interesting part is, that we can 'rotate' the axis of time and
declare stability to an axis of time perpendicular or in opposite
direction to the previous one.
>
Now we can assume, that both are possible and that both coexist at
the
same place, while unrecognized.
>
The 'other timelines' define also matter and also a real universe,
which is entirely hidden from sight by the observer mentioned
above.
>
It is invisible, but real.
>
Far better is actually my own approach, which goes like this:
>
I take the 'big bang' as case of a 'white hole'.
>
(That is 'the other side' of a 'black hole'.)
>
This 'white hole' spreads out and creates, what we call
'universe'
in which we as human beings live on planet Earth.
>
But 'universe' isn't universal at all and the timeline from big
bang
to us isn't the only timeline possible.
>
But since we can't observe any of these other universes it is a
complete waste of time to speculate about their possible
existence.
>
Our past is just one of an infinite number of possible timelines,
which all connect a big bang with something much later.
>
But you need to find a mechanism that lets you explore these other
timelines before anybody is going to take you seriously.
>
Invisible realms cannot be explored. It it also difficult to enter
such realms, because we are bound to our own 'axis of stability'.
>
It would be extremely dangerous to leave a certain realm, in
which we
share the same axis of time with the environment.
>
If an invisible realm cannot be explored, which implies that it's
inhabitants can't explore ours, there's not a lot of point in
speculating about it's potential existence.
>
This is more like a HUGE clock with one hand only, that circles
once
every ten billion years or so. This 'hand' moves slowly forewards
and creates new universes every time it moves.
>
If you want to imagine something like that, feel free, but don't
expect anybody else to be interested. You won't get any research
grants to support any work you might want to put in to make the
idea
sound less half-witted.
>
Well, I personally think, that this idea of mine is already known
since ages, but hidden from the public, because it would allow
several
things, out of which huge profits could be generated.
>
Like every other goofy sucker for conspiracy theories.
>
(like e.g. transmutation or time-travel)
>
But possibly this isn't known.
>
Almost certainly, there isn't anything there to know,
>
Would be better, but actually I don't know.
>
Anyhow, in case you are interested, here is my 'book' about this
concept:
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
>
>
It's now 16 years old and today I would write something different.
But
it's quite ok, anyhow.
>
Your idea of what might be ok isn't one that many sane people would
share.
>
Now new universes need new stars and those new planet.
>
They might, if they existed.
>
This causes what also regard as true: Growing Earth.
>
The earth doesn't seem to be growing.
>
The Earth seemingly grows!
>
This is another story, where the stories told to the public
apparently
differ from reality.
>
To understand 'Growing Earth' is quite difficult, because the few
books about this theory were systematically removed from public
eyes.
>
It also conflicts with the concept of the conservation of
mass-energy,
which underpins modern physics, and modern physics works remarkably
well.
>
But one book from Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg called 'Vom wachsenden
Erdball' is still available online (for free!), but is only
available
in German.
>
There's a pretty much infinite stock of total nonsense available in
print. I have no intention of digging out any of it.
>
>
There was this one fellow on sci.physics, a regular, years ago,
who had a similar sort of idea: to basically reflect that
after the Big Bang hypothesis made for Inflationary Cosmology
and Expanding Universe, to basically make "Growing Earth"
as "Balanced Bang", in this sense, the _idea_ itself is
not really different from other notions of "severe abstractions"
of "complementary duals", like for example Lagrange's "severe
abstraction" about energy and Lagrange's "complementary dual"
about potentials.
>
I.e., as an idea, it's a thing.
>
So are the protocols the elders of zion. It doesn't necessarily make
them a thing that anybody sane would take seriously.
>
These days, since 2MASS made for an account of that redshift bias
exists, and, then that JWST has roundly paintcanned ye olde
"Expanding Universe", i.e. the entire idea that the data after
Lemaitre and Hubble gave is right out the window, then figuring
out _why_ and _how_ this can be explained, sort of has an inverse
to model or "complementary dual", as to why the idea itself of
something like "Growing Earth" isn't more odd than "Big Bang".
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
>
doesn't list this as one of it observational triumphs.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2MASS
>
The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) similary doesn't seem to be
famous
for dethroning any theory at all.
>
There will always be twits who will misinterpret new results as
supporting their daft delusions.
>
>
Hm. The 2MASS experiment was sort of in the time when it was
discovered that what much of astronomy had pointed at as the
"beginning", according to Doppler redshift, that it was actually
as of "LaniaKea", our local supercluster.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laniakea_Supercluster
>
So, since the time of Lemaitre and Hubble (Big Bang theory),
it's agreeable that the available measurements saw a preponderance
of Doppler redshift in the sky. Yet, later, larger, and various
observatories, arrived at various things, including besides
that CMBR observed the universe is flat, then after taking
LaniaKea's jet into account, and besides, that instead of
99% redshift, the sky survey looks more like 51% redshift.
>
You may think that this is orthodoxy, but none of it seems to have made
it down to the New Scientist level of popular science.
>
These days that's considered with ideas like "redshift bias"
and "redshift distortion", about more effects involved that
lead to ideas like "tired light", about "redshift bias removal",
since otherwise according to the energy budget of the observable
universe, it's seven-sigmas or 99% "Dark Energy".
>
I'm sure that there's a lot of nut-case pseudoscience that plays with
these opinions, but again none of it seems to have made it down to the
New Scientist level of popular science.
>
So, various experiments with regards to various models point
to that "Expanding Universe", which makes for ideas like
"Growing Earth" to keep things balanced, instead have ideas
like "tired light", "Dark Energy", and here "redshift bias removal".
>
The "growing earth" hypothesis strikes me a decidedly unbalanced, to the
point of certifiable lunacy.
>
Otherwise there's sort of a non-explanation as to why the premier
theories of the cosmological models in the macroscale, or their
reflection on energy budgets in the microscale, are falsified.
>
Only in the minds of people who have an interest in seeing them as
falsified.
>
The CMBR as about establishing the universe was flat,
>
It's almost flat, which is to say that it is only slightly curved.
>
<snipped more incoherent ramblings>
>
So, ..., "not wrong".
>
But nowhere near right, and nowhere near enough to right to be worth
discussing.
>
>
I'm not saying Growing Earth is not wrong,
I'm saying Dark Matter / Dark Energy is already wrong.
>
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are hypotheses, and haven't actually been
falsified. They don't seem to have been proved wrong.
>
It rather _is_ de rigeur for many actual _physicists_,
mostly as would require being _theoretical physicsts_.
>
Nothing is de rigeur for working scientists, but if you want to ignore a
popular hypothesis that hasn't been falsifed you need to find a better
one to put in it's place.
>
What I say is so.
>
But who care what you say?
>
  The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since
otherwise the usual premier theories are violated.
 Now, these theories already have gravity always doing
work for free, which is a constant violation of
conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe.
Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits the sun without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces inside the sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the same way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change.
We can see that happening if we look very closely.
https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-moon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition,
this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise
premier theory has been falsified.
People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades now.
They seem to have a different definition from yours.
Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of the universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument.

"... as would require being theoretical _physicists_."
  I don't even care what I say: only what's said.
So you aren't all that careful about what you say.
--
Bill Sloman, sydney

Date Sujet#  Auteur
23 Feb 26 * Re: energy and mass1090Ross Finlayson
23 Feb 26 +* Re: energy and mass1075J. J. Lodder
24 Feb 26 i`* Re: energy and mass1074J. J. Lodder
24 Feb 26 i `* Re: energy and mass1073Ross Finlayson
24 Feb 26 i  +- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
25 Feb 26 i  `* Re: energy and mass1071Bill Sloman
25 Feb 26 i   +* Re: energy and mass1069J. J. Lodder
25 Feb 26 i   i+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
25 Feb 26 i   i+* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
26 Feb 26 i   ii`- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
26 Feb 26 i   i+* Re: energy and mass1026Bill Sloman
26 Feb 26 i   ii+- Re: energy and mass1Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   ii+* Re: energy and mass4Gerhard Hoffmann
26 Feb 26 i   iii`* Re: energy and mass3J. J. Lodder
26 Feb 26 i   iii `* Re: energy and mass2Gerhard Hoffmann
26 Feb 26 i   iii  `- Re: energy and mass1Domingo Totolos
26 Feb 26 i   ii+* Re: energy and mass1019Ross Finlayson
26 Feb 26 i   iii+* Re: energy and mass527Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii`* Re: energy and mass526Ross Finlayson
26 Feb 26 i   iiii +* Re: energy and mass3Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii i`* Re: energy and mass2Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii i `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
28 Feb 26 i   iiii `* Re: energy and mass522Thomas Heger
28 Feb 26 i   iiii  +* Re: energy and mass518Bill Sloman
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  i`* Re: energy and mass517Thomas Heger
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  i `* Re: energy and mass516Bill Sloman
3 Mar 26 i   iiii  i  `* Re: energy and mass515Thomas Heger
3 Mar 26 i   iiii  i   `* Re: energy and mass514Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i    `* Re: energy and mass513Thomas Heger
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i     `* Re: energy and mass512Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      +* Re: energy and mass10Jeroen Belleman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i`* Re: energy and mass9Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
6 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i `* Re: energy and mass8Ross Finlayson
6 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i  `* Re: energy and mass7john larkin
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i   `* Re: energy and mass6Bill Sloman
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i    `* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     +* Re: energy and mass3john larkin
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     i`* Re: energy and mass2Bill Sloman
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     i `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      +* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i+- Re: energy and mass1Don
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i+* Re: energy and mass2Don
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      ii`- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
8 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      `* Re: energy and mass496Thomas Heger
8 Mar 26 i   iiii  i       `* Re: energy and mass495Bill Sloman
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i        `* Re: energy and mass494Thomas Heger
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         +* Re: energy and mass101Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i+* Re: energy and mass77john larkin
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii+* Re: energy and mass5Jeroen Belleman
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iii+* Re: energy and mass3john larkin
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iiii+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iiii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii`* Re: energy and mass70Thomas Heger
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii +* Re: energy and mass62john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i+* Re: energy and mass12john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii+* Re: energy and mass5Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii`* Re: energy and mass4john larkin
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii  `* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii   `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii`* Re: energy and mass6J. J. Lodder
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii `* Re: energy and mass5john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  +- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii   `* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii    `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i+* Re: energy and mass13Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii`* Re: energy and mass12J. J. Lodder
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii `* Re: energy and mass11Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  `* Re: energy and mass10J. J. Lodder
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii   `* Re: energy and mass9Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii    `* Re: energy and mass8Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii     `* Re: energy and mass7Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii      `* Re: energy and mass6Maciej Woźniak
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii       `* Re: energy and mass5Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii        `* Re: energy and mass4Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii         `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii          `* Re: energy and mass2Maciej Woźniak
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii           `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i`* Re: energy and mass36Thomas Heger
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i `* Re: energy and mass35Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i  `* Re: energy and mass34Thomas Heger
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i   `* Re: energy and mass33Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i    `* Re: energy and mass32Thomas Heger
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i     `* Re: energy and mass31Bill Sloman
16 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i      +- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i      `* Re: energy and mass29Thomas Heger
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       +* Re: energy and mass27Bill Sloman
20 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i`* Re: energy and mass26Thomas Heger
20 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i `* Re: energy and mass25Bill Sloman
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i  `* Re: energy and mass24Thomas Heger
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   +* Re: energy and mass14john larkin
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i`* Re: energy and mass13Ross Finlayson
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i +* Re: energy and mass10john larkin
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i`* Re: energy and mass9Ross Finlayson
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i `* Re: energy and mass8john larkin
22 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i  `* Re: energy and mass7J. J. Lodder
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i `* Re: energy and mass2Bill Sloman
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   `* Re: energy and mass9Bill Sloman
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii `* Re: energy and mass7Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i+* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i`* Re: energy and mass18Paul B. Andersen
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         `* Re: energy and mass392Bill Sloman
28 Feb 26 i   iiii  +* Re: energy and mass2Ross Finlayson
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  `- Re: energy and mass1Thomas Heger
28 Feb 26 i   iii`* Re: energy and mass491Thomas Heger
26 Feb 26 i   ii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
28 Feb 26 i   i`* Re: energy and mass39Don
25 Feb 26 i   `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
24 Feb 26 `* Re: energy and mass14Bill Sloman

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal