Phys-L List Archive (by Thread) of August, 1999

Search Archives

• Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, William Beaty
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, William Beaty
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, William Beaty
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, Jim Green
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, William Beaty
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, Jim Green
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, William Beaty
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, William Beaty
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: teeny atoms absorb huge EM waves, William Beaty
• Re: A ball in a rotating dish, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A ball in a rotating dish, brian whatcott
• Re: Time Units, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Time Units, K. Lee Lerner
  • Time Units, Jim Green
  • Re: Time Units, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Time Units, Raymond A. Rogoway
  • Re: Time Units, Ben deMayo
  • Re: Time Units, Jim Green
  • Re: Time Units, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Time Units, paul o johnson
  • Re: Time Units, Zach Wolff
  • Re: Time Units, KATHERINE TODD
  • Re: Time Units, KATHERINE TODD
• Re: A ball in a rotating dish (was Hot air rising ...), brian whatcott
• Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Jim Green
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Doug Craigen
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Doug Craigen
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, John Denker
  • Re: Misconceptions FAQ, William Beaty
• PHYS-L Attachments Policy (was Re: misconceptions (physics of flight)), Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: PHYS-L Attachments Policy (was Re: misconceptions (physics of flight)), Daniel L. MacIsaac
• Au Recherche Du Temps Perdu: was Time Units, brian whatcott
• Re: A ball in a dish, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A ball in a dish, Robert A Cohen
• Re: A bawl in a rotating dish (was Hot air rising ...), Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A bawl in a rotating dish (was Hot air rising ...), Robert A Cohen
  • Re: A bawl in a rotating dish (was Hot air rising ...), Robert A Cohen
• Re: unsuscribe, CADENA RUIZ LUIS ERNESTO
• Re: A ball in a dish., Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A ball in a dish., Bob Sciamanda
• refutation of the nonreality of energy, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: refutation of the nonreality of energy, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: refutation of the nonreality of energy, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: refutation of the nonreality of energy, John Denker
  • Re: refutation of the nonreality of energy, Brian McInnes
  • Re: refutation of the nonreality of energy, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: refutation of the nonreality of energy, Jim Green
  • Re: refutation of the nonreality of energy, Bea or Rick Tarara
• [no subject], David Guerra
• Re: The Philosophy and History of Science Series, brian whatcott
• Energy, etc, Jim Green
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Energy, etc, William Beaty
  • Re: Energy, etc, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: Energy, etc, John S. Denker
  • Re: Energy, etc, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc, brian whatcott
  • Re: Energy, etc, John Denker
  • Re: Energy, etc, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: Energy, etc, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc, Michael N. Monce
  • Re: Energy, etc, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Energy, etc, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Energy, etc, Bea or Rick Tarara
  • Re: Energy, etc, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Energy, etc, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: Energy, etc, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Energy, etc, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Energy, etc, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: Energy, etc, Gordon Smith
  • Re: Energy, etc, Inge H. A. Pettersen
  • Re: Energy, etc, K. Lee Lerner
  • Re: Energy, etc, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Energy, etc, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc, brian whatcott
  • Re: Energy, etc, brian whatcott
  • Re: Energy, etc, Bea or Rick Tarara
  • Re: Energy, etc, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Energy, etc, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Energy, etc, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Energy, etc, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Energy, etc, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Energy, etc, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy, etc, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Energy, etc, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Energy, etc, William Beaty
  • Re: Energy, etc, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy, etc, Lois Breur Krause
• Re: misconceptions (physics of flight), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Re: A quotation, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Applied Physics, Wilson Gonzalez-espada
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Applied Physics, Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno
• Re: Gases, vapors and the like, Glenn Knapp
• simple pendulum, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: simple pendulum, Robert Curtis
  • Re: simple pendulum, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: simple pendulum, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: simple pendulum, Robert Curtis
  • Re: simple pendulum, Bea or Rick Tarara
  • Re: simple pendulum, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: simple pendulum, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: simple pendulum, James G. Pengra
• electostatic confinment?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: electostatic confinment?, brian whatcott
  • Re: electostatic confinment?, William Beaty
• Re: Banana Plug Tool, Kate Cleary
• Canoe hoist, Leigh Palmer
• Nuclear spectroscopy, K. Lee Lerner
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Nuclear spectroscopy, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Nuclear spectroscopy, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Nuclear spectroscopy, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Scenery, Jim Green
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Scenery, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Re: h**t, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: h**t, Brian McInnes
  • Re: h**t, Roger Haar
  • Re: h**t, Leigh Palmer
• Re: "simple" pendulum, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: "simple" pendulum, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: "Simple" pendulum, Ludwik Kowalski
• Re: Energy, John Denker
• conical pendulum, Leigh Palmer
• Re: Newsflash, K. Lee Lerner
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Newsflash, Gordon Smith
• Displacements, John Cooper
• Energy follow-up: Nonlinear Thermodynamics, K. Lee Lerner
• The reality of charge, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The reality of charge, Chuck Britton
• Textbook goofs, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Textbook goofs, brian whatcott
• inexact science versus caprice, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: inexact science versus caprice, Leigh Palmer
• Work-energy theorem, Ian Sefton
• amphigory: what is missing?, John
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: amphigory: what is missing?, brian whatcott
• Re: "Simple pendulum", Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", Michael Edmiston
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", Bea or Rick Tarara
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", Doug Craigen
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", Inge H. A. Pettersen
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", Inge H. A. Pettersen
  • Re: "Simple pendulum", JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Ampere's law applied, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Ampere's law applied, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Ampere's law applied, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Ampere's law applied, brian whatcott
  • Re: Ampere's law applied, Leigh Palmer
• Re: Fiber Optic current measurement., Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Fiber Optic current measurement., Chuck Britton
  • Re: Fiber Optic current measurement., Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Fiber Optic current measurement., Leigh Palmer
• Rambling morning note and Chuck Britton's comment, Leigh Palmer
• Why care?, Rob Davies
• Re: Energy, etc. (third law/forces/work), Bea or Rick Tarara
• Newtonian gravitational field energy (long), David Bowman
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy (long), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy (long), David Bowman
  • Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy (long), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy (long), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy (long), Leigh Palmer
• eclipse and pendulums, William Beaty
• Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy, John Denker
• Archimedes meets the Tare Bar., brian whatcott
• F=m*a before kinematics?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: F=m*a before kinematics?, Peter Schoch
  • Re: F=m*a before kinematics?, Ludwik Kowalski
• The rabbi's copout, Leigh Palmer
• Coriolis, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Coriolis, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Coriolis, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Coriolis, Roger Haar
  • Re: Coriolis, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Coriolis, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Coriolis, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Coriolis, brian whatcott
• typing corrections, Ludwik Kowalski
• erratum Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy (long), David Bowman
• off topic: echoes of Columbine, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: off topic: echoes of Columbine, Leigh Palmer
• Re: Decceleration and sign of the acceleration componet, Brian McInnes
• Lagrangians, Nth-rank tensors, and Nth derivatives, John Denker
• Re: coriolis situation, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • coriolis situation, Michael Moloney
  • Re: coriolis situation, Brian McInnes
  • Re: coriolis situation, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: coriolis situation, Robert A Cohen
• Sign Conventions, Doug Craigen
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Sign Conventions, Spagna Jr., George
• PIRA members and prospective members, Jerry Hester
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: PIRA members and prospective members, Greg Puskar
  • Re: PIRA members and prospective members, Sampere
• Bridge Collapse, Michael Edmiston
• Acoustic resonance, Charlie Crummer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Acoustic resonance, Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno
  • Re: Acoustic resonance, brian whatcott
  • Re: Acoustic resonance, Gordon Smith
  • Re: Acoustic resonance, brian whatcott
  • Re: Acoustic resonance, Gordon Smith
• Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, romanza
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, John S. Denker
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, William Beaty
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, romanza
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Michael N. Monce
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Brian W. Rich
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Michael N. Monce
  • Re[2]: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Philip Zell
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, William Beaty
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, William Beaty
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, William Beaty
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, William Beaty
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Spagna Jr., George
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Glenn A. Carlson
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, William Beaty
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Glenn A. Carlson
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, William Beaty
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, John Denker
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, William Beaty
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, Terry Hallaran
  • Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight, John Denker
• Graf Spee and Graf Spee, Michael Moloney
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Graf Spee and Graf Spee, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Graf Spee and Graf Spee, Robert Curtis
• another passive maglev, William Beaty
• Mathematical HTML tags, Ludwik Kowalski
• Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Darwin Z. Palima
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Charlie Crummer
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), William Beaty
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Jim Green
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), Richard Tarara
  • Re: Energy, etc (fwd), William Beaty
• New Physics Paradigm, stephen mooney
• Can this be true?, Carl C. Gaither
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Can this be true?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Can this be true?, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: Can this be true?, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Can this be true?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Can this be true?, Maurice Barnhill
  • Re: Can this be true?, Glenn A. Carlson
  • Re: Can this be true?, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Can this be true?, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Can this be true?, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Can this be true?, Glenn A. Carlson
• Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight: OOPS!, William Beaty
• 2 million teachers in 2007!, Jane Jackson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Keith Tipton
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Sampere
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Sampere
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Sampere
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Sampere
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Sampere
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, John C. Park
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, John C. Park
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Sampere
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Brian McInnes
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Richard Tarara
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Chuck Britton
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, John Denker
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: 2 million teachers in 2007!, Glenn Knapp
• AAPTApparatus Competition [ A cart and a fan (not exactly physics of flight) ], Michael Moloney
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: AAPTApparatus Competition [ A cart and a fan (not exactly physics of flight) ], brian whatcott
  • Re: AAPTApparatus Competition [ A cart and a fan (not exactly physics of flight) ], Thomas Greenslade, Jr.
  • Re: AAPTApparatus Competition [ A cart and a fan (not exactly physics of flight) ], Herbert H Gottlieb
• lift, Alvin V. Flores
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: lift, Chuck Britton
  • Re: lift, Lois Breur Krause
• Re: PHYS-L Digest - 11 Aug 1999 to 12 Aug 1999, Glenn A. Carlson
• Perseids meteor shower tonight!, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Perseids meteor shower tonight!, Rondo Jeffery
• Teaching E&M before Mechanics, Owen von Kugelgen
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Teaching E&M before Mechanics, Ed Schweber
• duck's quack, Jayasanker_J
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: duck's quack, Thomas O'Neill
• Re: H2O, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • H2O, Jim Green
  • Re: H2O, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: H2O, brian whatcott
  • Re: H2O, Raymond A. Rogoway
  • Re: H2O, Doug Craigen
  • Re: H2O, Michael Edmiston
• Re: 2 million teachers in 2007! - PS, Michael Edmiston
• Energy <=> Money, Timothy Folkerts
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Energy <=> Money, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Energy <=> Money, Rob Davies
  • Re: Energy <=> Money, William Beaty
• the "sound barrier" again, Mark Sylvester
• [Fwd: The Scout Report -- August 13, 1999 -- HTML Version] (fwd), Daniel L. MacIsaac
• Re: lift (correct or otherwise), John Denker
• relative angle of attack, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: relative angle of attack, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Re: Physics of Flight: inferring the pressure, John Denker
• Re: H2O vs. Wiedemann-Franz, John Denker
• Re: Physics of Flight; air deflection, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Physics of Flight; air deflection, William Beaty
• Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report -- August 13, 1999 -- HTML Version] (fwd), Chuck Britton
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report -- August 13, 1999 -- HTML Version] (fwd), Lois Breur Krause
• energy etc. +- precise language, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: energy etc. +- precise language, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: energy etc. +- precise language, John Denker
  • Re: energy etc. +- precise language, brian whatcott
• Northern Lights (Re: Perseids meteor shower tonight!), Doug Craigen
• Re: lift requires vortices, John Denker
• Re: pedagogical use of helicopters, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: pedagogical use of helicopters, William Beaty
• Re: Electron size?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Electron size?, Herbert H Gottlieb
• Re: electron, proton size, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: electron, proton size, John Denker
  • Re: electron, proton size, brian whatcott
  • Re: electron, proton size, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: electron, proton size, John Denker
• Re: misconceptions: 2D model of 3D flight, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: misconceptions: 2D model of 3D flight, William Beaty
  • Re: misconceptions: 2D model of 3D flight, John Denker
• Re: Physics of Flight; circulation and vortices, John Denker
• Re: ailerons and adverse yaw, John Denker
• Re: Misconceptions: adverse yaw, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Misconceptions: adverse yaw, brian whatcott
  • Re: Misconceptions: adverse yaw, John Denker
• Making Contact with Pioneers, brian whatcott
• Re: Making Contact with Pioneers - Corrigendum, brian whatcott
• your presentation in san antonio, Keith Tipton
• Re: your presentation in san antonio--OOPS, Keith Tipton
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: your presentation in san antonio--OOPS, Daniel Schroeder
• weight of a bird in a cage, Carl E. Mungan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: weight of a bird in a cage, Inge H. A. Pettersen
• Re: Relativity and Theories, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Relativity and Theories, KATHERINE TODD
  • Re: Relativity and Theories, KATHERINE TODD
  • Re: Relativity and Theories, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Relativity and Theories, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Relativity and Theories, Inge H. A. Pettersen
  • Re: Relativity and Theories, KATHERINE TODD
  • Re: Relativity and Theories, Lois Breur Krause
• Re: Dangerous Ion Colliding Experiment?, Alex Burr
• how do you manage? (was Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report...), Stefan Jeglinski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: how do you manage? (was Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report...), Herschel Neumann
  • Re: how do you manage? (was Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report...), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: how do you manage? (was Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report...), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: how do you manage? (was Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report...), Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: how do you manage? (was Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report...), Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: how do you manage? (was Re: [Fwd: The Scout Report...), Bob Sciamanda
• Lost Lab Period, David Simmons
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Lost Lab Period, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Lost Lab Period, Carl Schneider
  • Re: Lost Lab Period, Tim Burgess
• Re: General Relativity, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: General Relativity, Lois Breur Krause
• Re: Newtonian gravitational field energy (very long), David Bowman
• is free-fall an inertial frame?, Stefan Jeglinski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, John Denker
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, John Denker
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Joel Rauber
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Hugh Haskell
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?, Bob Sciamanda
• Re: Physics of Flight, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Physics of Flight, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Physics of Flight, John Denker
  • Re: Physics of Flight, John Denker
  • Re: Physics of Flight, paul o johnson
  • Re: Physics of Flight, John Denker
  • Re: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Physics of Flight, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Physics of Flight, paul o johnson
  • Re: Physics of Flight, paul o johnson
  • Re: Physics of Flight, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Physics of Flight, brian whatcott
  • Re: Physics of Flight, John Denker
  • Re: Physics of Flight, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Physics of Flight, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Physics of Flight, Ludwik Kowalski
• what is science?, Lois Breur Krause
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • What is science?, kyle forinash
  • Re: what is science?, Hugh Haskell
• Re: Eclipses and the orbital plane of the Moon, John Mallinckrodt
• Thanks, KATHERINE TODD
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Thanks, Hugh Haskell
  • Re: Thanks, Raymond A. Rogoway
  • Re: Thanks, Spagna Jr., George
• Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, William Beaty
  • Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, brian whatcott
  • Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, John Denker
  • Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, Mary and Bill Allsopp
  • Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, William Beaty
  • Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, brian whatcott
  • Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, William Beaty
  • Re: To hover, a reaction-motor pushes on the earth?, William Beaty
• Some possibly interesting resources, Michael Moloney
• Re: is free-fall an inertial frame? (long), John Mallinckrodt
• Evolution and Creationism, Kenneth J. Morgan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, William Beaty
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, K. Lee Lerner
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, K. Lee Lerner
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Peter Schoch
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Evolution and Creationism, David Abineri
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, William Beaty
  • Evolution and Creationism, Peter Mccardell
  • Evolution and Creationism, Wes Davis
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Doug Craigen
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Phil P. Johnson
  • Evolution and Creationism, David Abineri
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Scott Rippetoe
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Phil P. Johnson
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, K. Lee Lerner
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, David Bowman
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Homer B. James
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Peter Schoch
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Phil P Johnson
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Peter Mccardell
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Gordon Smith
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Michael N. Monce
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Gordon Smith
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Phil P. Johnson
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, David J. Hamilton
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, William Beaty
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, John Denker
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Hugh Haskell
  • Re[2]: Evolution and Creationism, Philip Zell
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, paul o johnson
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Glenn Knapp
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, William Beaty
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, William Beaty
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, David Abineri
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Inge H. A. Pettersen
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, William Beaty
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Rick Tarara
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Glenn Knapp
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Rick Tarara
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, William Beaty
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Hugh Haskell
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, William Beaty
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, Robert W. Harris
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, paul o johnson
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Aug 99 PHYS-L Tech Posting and CIVILITY REMINDER, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Aug 99 PHYS-L Tech Posting and CIVILITY REMINDER, Daniel L. MacIsaac
• Re: helicopter not equal rocket, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, John Denker
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, John Denker
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, John Denker
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, brian whatcott
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, John Denker
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: helicopter not equal rocket, John Denker
• Textbook prices, Harvey S. Picker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • textbook prices, Robert J. Beichner
  • Re: textbook prices, Peter Mccardell
  • Re: Textbook prices, Owen von Kugelgen
  • Re: Textbook prices, John Gastineau
  • Re: Textbook prices, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: Textbook prices, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: Textbook prices, Peter Schoch
  • Re: textbook prices, Steven D. Richardson
  • Re: Textbook prices, Joel Rauber
  • Re: textbook prices, Harvey S. Picker
  • Re: textbook prices, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: Textbook prices, Thomas O'Neill
• The Myth of Superheated Steam, John D. Wiseman SET PHYS-L MAIL DIG NOREP NOACE NOMIME HELP
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The Myth of Superheated Steam, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: The Myth of Superheated Steam, brian whatcott
  • Re: The Myth of Superheated Steam, brian whatcott
• barking up the downwash tree, John Denker
• The smell of rain, Cliff Parker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The smell of rain, paul o johnson
  • Re: The smell of rain, John Denker
  • Re: The smell of rain, Cliff Parker
  • Re: The smell of rain, Peter Mccardell
  • Re: The smell of rain, Cliff Parker
  • Re: The smell of rain, Brian W. Rich
  • Re: The smell of rain, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: The smell of rain, Andy O'Neil
  • Re: The smell of rain, Doug Craigen
  • Re: The smell of rain, Sampere
  • Re: The smell of rain, Lois Breur Krause
• Acceleration and curves, Cliff Parker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, Peter Mccardell
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, Peter Mccardell
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, brian whatcott
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, James Watson
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, Peter Mccardell
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, Alex. F. Burr
  • Re: Acceleration and curves, Hugh Haskell
• re-define "reaction motor???", William Beaty
• Translational lift in helicopters, Bob Yeend
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Translational lift in helicopters, John Denker
  • Re: Translational lift in helicopters, brian whatcott
• Re: celestial momentum farce, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: celestial momentum farce, John Denker
  • Re: celestial momentum farce, Peter Mccardell
• Mechanisms of Comological & Biological Evolution, K. Lee Lerner
• John Denker vs. Anderson/Eberhardt, William Beaty
• Re: 30 seconds per century? (was Re: Evolution and Creationism), brian whatcott
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • 30 seconds per century? (was Re: Evolution and Creationism), John Mallinckrodt
• Elastic Energy Transfers, Carr, John
• Many Thanks, Kenneth J. Morgan
• MS - Outlook, Joel Rauber
• Re: Travesty credentials, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Travesty credentials, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Travesty credentials, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Travesty credentials, Lois Breur Krause
• Re: name collision (was Evolution and Creationism), John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: name collision (was Evolution and Creationism), paul o johnson
• Re: Travesty of paleogeomagnetism, John Denker
• Re: Travesty of big-bang energetics, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Travesty of big-bang energetics, David Bowman
  • Re: Travesty of big-bang energetics, Stefan Jeglinski
• but does the *earth* push up on the *wing*?, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: but does the *earth* push up on the *wing*?, John Denker
  • Re: but does the *earth* push up on the *wing*?, William Beaty
  • Re: but does the *earth* push up on the *wing*?, Timothy Folkerts
  • Re: but does the *earth* push up on the *wing*?, David_Anderson
  • Re: but does the *earth* push up on the *wing*?, Timothy Folkerts
  • Re: but does the *earth* push up on the *wing*?, William Beaty
  • Re: but does the *earth* push up on the *wing*?, William Beaty
• Re: Travesty of quantum decoherence, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Travesty of quantum decoherence, Jerome Epstein
• "longer wings" defeats "reaction motor"???, William Beaty
• the "Bernoulli-ist" religious belief, William Beaty
• physics can be so nonlinear, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: physics can be so nonlinear, William Beaty
• Re: Evolution and Creationism/Thank you/3rd Law, Dorrie Bright
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Evolution and Creationism/Thank you/3rd Law, Bob Sciamanda
• Re: what pushes up on the *wing*?, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: what pushes up on the *wing*?, David_Anderson
• Evolution/Theory, Stefan Jeglinski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Evolution/Theory, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Evolution/Theory, Glenn Knapp
  • Re: Evolution/Theory, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Evolution/Theory, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Evolution/Theory, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Evolution/Theory, L. R. Cartwright (Larry)
  • Re: Evolution/Theory, Joel Rauber
• Denker vs Anderson and Eberhardt, David_Anderson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Denker vs Anderson and Eberhardt, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Denker vs Anderson and Eberhardt, David_Anderson
• Re: The Tergiversation of the Trichotomy: A Sermon, Robert W. Harris
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The Tergiversation of the Trichotomy: A Sermon, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • The Tergiversation of the Trichotomy: A Sermon, brian whatcott
• Re: vortices can be so nonlinear, John Denker
• Re: big-bang energetics, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: big-bang energetics, David Bowman
• Re: refutation of the scoop theory, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: refutation of the scoop theory, David_Anderson
  • Re: refutation of the scoop theory, John Denker
  • Re: refutation of the scoop theory, brian whatcott
• The earth pushing on a wing, revisited, David_Anderson
• Re: refutation of the scoop theory, revisited, David_Anderson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: refutation of the scoop theory, revisited, brian whatcott
  • Re: refutation of the scoop theory, revisited, David_Anderson
  • Re: refutation of the scoop theory, revisited, brian whatcott
• Glass does not flow, David_Anderson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Glass does not flow, Larry Smith
  • Re: Glass does not flow, Jim Green
  • Re: Glass does not flow, David_Anderson
  • Re: Glass does not flow, Stan Dodds
  • Re: Glass does not flow, Jim Green
  • Re: Glass does not flow, Samuel Held
  • Re: Glass does not flow, David_Anderson
  • Re: Glass does not flow, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Glass does not flow, William Beaty
  • Re: Glass does not flow, William Beaty
  • Re: Glass does not flow, brian whatcott
  • Re: Glass does not flow, Jim Green
• Y2K, Jim Green
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Y2K, Samuel Held
• Links to San Antonio talks, Michael Moloney
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Links to San Antonio talks, Rick Tarara
• Re: Y2K-NOT and glass does not flow, Stefan Jeglinski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Y2K-NOT and glass does not flow, Jim Green
  • Re: Y2K-NOT and glass does not flow, paul o johnson
• Light bulbs, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Light bulbs, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Light bulbs, brian whatcott
  • Re: Light bulbs, David_Anderson
  • Re: Light bulbs, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Light bulbs, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Light bulbs, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Light bulbs, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Light bulbs, William Beaty
  • Re: Light bulbs, paul o johnson
  • Re: Light bulbs, William Beaty
  • Re: Light bulbs, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Light bulbs, Leigh Palmer
• Re: Physics of Flight (and Anderson/Eberhardt), William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Physics of Flight (and Anderson/Eberhardt), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Physics of Flight (and Anderson/Eberhardt), Rick Tarara
  • Re: Physics of Flight (and Anderson/Eberhardt), Rick Tarara
  • Re: Physics of Flight (and Anderson/Eberhardt), William Beaty
• FLYING MACHINES was physics of flight, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: FLYING MACHINES was physics of flight, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: FLYING MACHINES was physics of flight, John Denker
• John Denker's "upwash contributes lift", William Beaty
• Newcomb's paper, Inge H. A. Pettersen
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newcomb's paper, William Beaty
• Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), David_Anderson
  • Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), William Beaty
• Re: upwash contributes lift, John Denker
• Re: Evolution in schools (was Re: Evolution...), Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Evolution in schools (was Re: Evolution...), Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Evolution in schools (was Re: Evolution...), Glenn Knapp
  • Re: Evolution in schools (was Re: Evolution...), Robert W. Harris
  • Re: Evolution in schools (was Re: Evolution...), Stefan Jeglinski
• levels of belief, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: levels of belief, Cliff Parker
  • Re: levels of belief, Leigh Palmer
• Teaching students to THINK: Modeling Method, Jane Jackson
• Re: upwash etc., John Denker
• Bernoulli Equation: Facts and Misconceptions, David_Anderson
• Re: PHYS-L Digest - 22 Aug 1999 - Special issue, Dorrie Bright
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: PHYS-L Digest - 22 Aug 1999 - Special issue, brian whatcott
• Science and Religion, Carl C. Gaither
• FLYING MACHINES to "thrust", Tim Burgess
• The Source of "Phil's" List, Doug Craigen
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The Source of "Phil's" List, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: The Source of "Phil's" List, Daniel L. MacIsaac
• style, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: style, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: style, Spagna Jr., George
  • Re: style, Brian W. Rich
  • Re: style, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: style, paul o johnson
  • Re: style, Spagna Jr., George
  • Re: style, paul o johnson
  • Re: style, Spagna Jr., George
  • Re: style, brian whatcott
  • Re: style, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: style, Doug Craigen
  • Re: style, brian whatcott
  • Re: style, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: style, paul o johnson
  • Re: style, paul o johnson
  • Re: style, Ludwik Kowalski
• strong theories, weak theories, not-even-wrong theories, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: strong theories, weak theories, not-even-wrong theories, Hugh Haskell
  • Re: strong theories, weak theories, not-even-wrong theories, Timothy Folkerts
  • Re: strong theories, weak theories, not-even-wrong theories, John Denker
  • Re: strong theories, weak theories, not-even-wrong theories, Lois Breur Krause
• threads based on outside references, Richard Tarara
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: threads based on outside references, Leigh Palmer
• end of thread: physics, non-physics, and airplanes, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: end of thread: physics, non-physics, and airplanes, William Beaty
  • Re: end of thread: physics, non-physics, and airplanes, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: end of thread: physics, non-physics, and airplanes, William Beaty
• sayings, acronym collections, John Denker
• inet acronyms, Stefan Jeglinski
• Rebuttal of Denker's rubuttal, David_Anderson
• NOAH'S FLOOD (book review), Jane Jackson
• Downwash reflecting up?, David_Anderson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Downwash reflecting up?, Tim Burgess
• message fwd from Scott Eberhardt, William Beaty
• planes flying abreast: the Newtonian solution, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: planes flying abreast: the Newtonian solution, David_Anderson
• Re: Schools (was Re: Evolution...), Jerome Epstein
• Re: Acronyms, Jerome Epstein
• Physics differences, Bob Sciamanda
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Physics differences, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Newton's later "research", Jim Braunsdorf
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newton's later "research", Richard Grandy
  • Re: Newton's later "research", Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's later "research", Joseph Bellina
  • Re: Newton's later "research", Hugh Haskell
  • Re: Newton's later "research", Joseph Bellina
• Re: The air track experiment, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • The air track experiment, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: The air track experiment, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: The air track experiment, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: The air track experiment, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: The air track experiment, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), Brian McInnes
  • Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), David_Anderson
  • Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), William Beaty
  • Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), William Beaty
  • Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), David_Anderson
  • Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), William Beaty
  • Re: lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), Ludwik Kowalski
• Re: 15 minute classroom version..., Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • 15 minute classroom version..., William Beaty
  • Re: 15 minute classroom version..., David_Anderson
  • Re: 15 minute classroom version..., William Beaty
  • Re: 15 minute classroom version..., William Beaty
  • Re: 15 minute classroom version..., Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: 15 minute classroom version..., Richard Tarara
• lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*), William Beaty
• Re: intentionally distorting arguments, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • intentionally distorting arguments, William Beaty
  • Re: intentionally distorting arguments, William Beaty
  • Re: intentionally distorting arguments, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: intentionally distorting arguments, William Beaty
• Newest 'Science Teacher' focusus on safety, Keith Tipton
• direct vs. indirect forces, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: direct vs. indirect forces, Brian McInnes
  • Re: direct vs. indirect forces, John Denker
• Benchmark problems, Jim Harpel
• re-defining "coanda effect", William Beaty
• Air Track Experiments, David Abineri
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Air Track Experiments, Richard Tarara
  • Air Track Experiments, David Abineri
  • Re: Air Track Experiments, John Gastineau
  • Re: Air Track Experiments, Richard Tarara
• what's got into beaty?, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: what's got into beaty?, Michael Edmiston
• Who should judge?, William Beaty
• Religion/science & coincidence, William Beaty
• Mystery Object, Jim Green
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Mystery Object, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Mystery Object, paul o johnson
  • Re: Mystery Object, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• falling pie plate (was: ... *earth* vs. *wing*), Carl E. Mungan
• et cetera, paul o johnson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: et cetera, Richard Tarara
  • Re: et cetera, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: et cetera, paul o johnson
  • Re: et cetera, paul o johnson
  • Re: et cetera, Bob Sciamanda
• Would You Believe?, Van E. Neie
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Would You Believe?, paul o johnson
  • Re: Would You Believe?, Tom DeBrita
  • Re: Would You Believe?, Rick Tarara
  • Re: Would You Believe?, brian whatcott
• rapidity, Rob Davies
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: rapidity, Brian McInnes
• CORRECTION Re: end of thread: physics, non-physics, and airplanes, William Beaty
• keeping those darned planets apart, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: keeping those darned planets apart, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: keeping those darned planets apart, Peter Schoch
  • Re: keeping those darned planets apart, Glenn Knapp
  • Re: keeping those darned planets apart, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: keeping those darned planets apart, William Beaty
• help, Kevin M. Dudley
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: help, brian whatcott
• Energy-sucking EM antennas, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, William Beaty
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, William Beaty
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, Gary Karshner
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, William Beaty
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, William Beaty
  • Re: Energy-sucking EM antennas, Jim Green
• Re: The air track experiment:Cooked Data!, Dr. James Mackey
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The air track experiment:Cooked Data!, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: The air track experiment:Cooked Data!, Hugh Haskell
• Judgement on opposing airfoil views, pt. 1, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views, pt. 1, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views, pt. 1, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views, pt. 1, William Beaty
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views, pt. 1, William Beaty
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views, pt. 1, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views, pt. 1, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views, pt. 1, William Beaty
• Re: The air track experiment:!Cooked Data, brian whatcott
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The air track experiment:!Cooked Data, Hugh Haskell
• Re: Cooked Data, John S. Denker
• Superheated Steam, John D. Wiseman SET PHYS-L MAIL DIG NOREP NOACE NOMIME HELP
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Superheated Steam, John D. Wiseman SET PHYS-L MAIL DIG NOREP NOACE NOMIME HELP
  • Superheated Steam, John D. Wiseman SET PHYS-L MAIL DIG NOREP NOACE NOMIME HELP
  • Re: Superheated Steam, brian whatcott
  • Re: Superheated Steam, Clarence Bennett
  • Re: Superheated Steam, Philip Zell
• How do crystal radios really work, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: How do crystal radios really work, Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: How do crystal radios really work, William Beaty
  • Re: How do crystal radios really work, Gary Karshner
• Stupid Software Problem, paul o johnson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Stupid Software Problem, Stefan Jeglinski
• Explanation of recent message., Michael Edmiston
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Explanation of recent message., Michael Edmiston
• Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Rex Snyder
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Allen Miller
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Glenn Knapp
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Stefan Jeglinski
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, John Denker
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Robert W. Harris
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, John Gastineau
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Clarence Bennett
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, brian whatcott
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Glenn Knapp
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Significant figures - a Modest Proposal, Ludwik Kowalski
• Judgement on opposing airfoil views pt. 2, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views pt. 2, Timothy Folkerts
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views pt. 2, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views pt. 2, William Beaty
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views pt. 2, William Beaty
  • Re: Judgement on opposing airfoil views pt. 2, Lois Breur Krause
• quick note on air-parcel motion, William Beaty
• Sig Figs, et al, Van E. Neie
• amusement park accidents, Keith Tipton
• Ball Lightning??, Chuck Britton
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Ball Lightning??, William Beaty
• SI &c., Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: SI &c., Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: SI &c., Mark Sylvester
  • Re: SI &c., paul o johnson
  • Re: SI &c., Robert A Cohen
• Submit your favorite physics sites (read for more), Keith Tipton
• Tacoma Revisited, brian whatcott
• Re: SI &c., eh?, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, paul o johnson
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, David Bowman
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, Chuck Britton
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, paul o johnson
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, paul o johnson
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, Richard Tarara
  • Re: SI &c., eh?, Leigh Palmer
• Evidence for supersymmetry found ?, Inge H. A. Pettersen
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Evidence for supersymmetry found ?, Maurice Barnhill
  • Re: Evidence for supersymmetry found ?, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Re: resolution vs. precision, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: resolution vs. precision, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: resolution vs. precision, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: resolution vs. precision, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: resolution vs. precision, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: resolution vs. precision, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: resolution vs. precision, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: resolution vs. precision, paul o johnson
• hello!, Daniel Lozkov
• [Fwd: CSSP's Bromley- "No Science, No Surplus"], Charley Myles
• [Fwd: Deadlines !] (fwd), Charley Myles
• Innate Perverseness of E-mail Pages, paul o johnson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Innate Perverseness of E-mail Pages, Rick Tarara
  • Re: Innate Perverseness of E-mail Pages, Ivan E. Rouse
  • Re: Innate Perverseness of E-mail Pages, paul o johnson
• Sorry to put this on the list - but I wish to reach Clements, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• DVM - VTVM - etc, Michael Edmiston
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: DVM - VTVM - etc, Stan Dodds
• precision/accuracy, Ken Fox
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: precision/accuracy, Mark Sylvester
  • Re: precision/accuracy, Michael Edmiston
• Uncertainty Question, Ken Fox
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Uncertainty Question, Mark Sylvester
  • Re: Uncertainty Question, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Uncertainty Question, Peter Schoch
• Tornados and Lightning, Glenn Knapp
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Tornados and Lightning, brian whatcott