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

Search Archives

• Re: Tutoring, Wes Davis
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • tutoring, Barlow Newbolt
  • Tutoring, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Tutoring, Jerry Hester
  • Re: Tutoring, Sampere
  • Re: Tutoring, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Tutoring, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: Tutoring, Greg Puskar
  • Re: Tutoring, Stan Dodds
  • Re: Tutoring, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Tutoring, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: Tutoring, Richard Bowman
  • Re: Tutoring, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Tutoring, paul o johnson
  • Re: Tutoring, Stan Dodds
  • Re: Tutoring, Richard Grandy
  • Re: Tutoring, Jon Bell
  • Re: Tutoring, Lois Breur Krause
• Units, Barlow Newbolt
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • units, Barlow Newbolt
  • Re: Units, Jim Green
  • Re: Units, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Units, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Units, Chuck Britton
• Re: mars and venus (long), Eric T. Lane
• Re: i,j,k -- OK, how do the students get it?, David Bowman
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: i,j,k -- OK, how do the students get it?, John Denker
• Shock,Horror: Kingdom Lost for Want of a Nail, brian whatcott
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Shock,Horror: Kingdom Lost for Want of a Nail, Leigh Palmer
• Re: Scientific method was physical pendulums/ an opportunity/cosmic rays, Pat Keeney
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Scientific method was physical pendulums/ an opportunity/cosmic rays, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Re: College nowadays - What "should" students know?, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: College nowadays - What "should" students know?, Fran Poodry
  • Re: College nowadays - What "should" students know?, Ed Schweber
  • Re: College nowadays - What "should" students know?, B. Esser
• Re: Scientific method was physical pendulums/ an opportunity, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Scientific method was physical pendulums/ an opportunity, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Scientific method was physical pendulums/ an opportunity, Hugh Haskell
• Re(2): Units, Brian Rintoul
• Re: units: k, K, kibi, brian whatcott
• COLLEGE EDUCATION ON THE AUCTION BLOCK, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
• Tide, Jim Green
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Tide, John Cooper
• Physics in Australia - not quite the full story, Margaret Mazzolini
• Re: Dull Razors, James McLean
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Dull Razors, Tom Ford
• Re: Netscape Communicator, James McLean
• Orbitals visualized, John Cooper
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Orbitals visualized, Herschel Neumann
  • Re: Orbitals visualized, William Weiler
  • Re: Orbitals visualized, Richard Grandy
  • Re: Orbitals visualized, Jim Diamond
  • Re: Orbitals visualized, Richard Grandy
  • Re: Orbitals visualized, John Cooper
• Re: Calculators and "Cheating", Marc Kossover
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Calculators and "Cheating", Hugh Haskell
• "Faraday's Final Riddle", brian whatcott
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Chuck Britton
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Leigh Palmer
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Chuck Britton
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Sampere
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", William Beaty
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Chuck Britton
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: "Faraday's Final Riddle", Lois Breur Krause
• Caboose?, Lemmerhirt, Fred
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Caboose?, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Caboose?, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Caboose?, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Caboose?, Richard Grandy
  • Re: Caboose?, Clarence Bennett
  • Re: Caboose?, Jim Birdsong
  • Re: Caboose?, Clarence Bennett
  • Re: Caboose?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Caboose?, Richard Grandy
  • Re: Caboose?, Spagna Jr., George
  • Re: Caboose?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Caboose?, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Caboose?, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Caboose?, Peter Schoch
  • Re: Caboose?, Gordon Smith
  • Re: Caboose?, Clarence Bennett
  • Re: Caboose?, Maurice Barnhill
  • Re: Caboose?, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Caboose?, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Caboose?, brian whatcott
  • Re: Caboose?, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: Caboose?, brian whatcott
• Choice of textbooks, Laurent Hodges
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Choice of textbooks, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Choice of textbooks, Daniel Schroeder
• No calculators on exams, Laurent Hodges
• Re: Pernicious Ideas (was "Faraday's Final Riddle"), brian whatcott
• Re: flux +- quantization, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: flux +- quantization, Chuck Britton
  • Re: flux +- quantization, John Denker
• Aw Shucks, John Cooper
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Aw Shucks, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Aw Shucks, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Aw Shucks, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
• Re: swamped, Karl Trappe
• A. Einstein and science-fairs, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, William Beaty
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Larry Cartwright
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Richard Tarara
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Richard Tarara
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Richard Tarara
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Chuck Britton
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Cliff Parker
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Chuck Britton
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Cliff Parker
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, William Beaty
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Cliff Parker
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Rick Tarara
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Cliff Parker
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Maurice Barnhill
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Cliff Parker
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, William Beaty
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs, paul o johnson
• Re: flux +- quantization (off list), Leigh Palmer
• Re: science-fairs and scientific method, William Beaty
• Re: reality vs. science fair vs. hypothesis testing, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: reality vs. science fair vs. hypothesis testing, William Beaty
• Crocodile clips, Greg Kifer
• Re: URL syntax, John Denker
• In praise of puzzles, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
• Re: let's outgrow puzzles, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Joel Rauber
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, John Denker
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Hugh Haskell
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, David Bowman
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, John Denker
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Joel Rauber
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Hugh Haskell
  • Re: let's outgrow puzzles, Zach Wolff
• Re: hypotheses non fingo, John Denker
• Re: PHYS-L Digest - 4 Oct 1999 - Special issue, Linda Meichle
• teacher's version of Kittel&Kroemer?, wmw
• Killing a subject (was Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs), John Mallinckrodt
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Killing a subject (was Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs), William Beaty
  • Re: Killing a subject (was Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs), Hugh Haskell
• Re: underwear, Chuck Britton
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: underwear, Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: underwear, Lois Breur Krause
• value, price, and cost, John S. Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: value, price, and cost, Hugh Haskell
• Re: more on 'hypotheses non fingo", brian whatcott
• Measuring things, Chuck Britton
• Re: dealing fickle success, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: dealing fickle success, Hugh Haskell
• Re: pearl diving, John Denker
• Re: dealing with fickle success, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: dealing with fickle success, Karl Trappe
• science fair petition?, William Beaty
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: science fair petition?, Joel Rauber
  • Re: science fair petition?, paul o johnson
  • Re: science fair petition?, William Beaty
  • Re: science fair petition?, Ron Ebert
• Re: speed of light, Timothy Folkerts
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: speed of light, Karl Trappe
  • Re: speed of light, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: speed of light, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: speed of light, brian whatcott
  • Re: speed of light, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: speed of light, brian whatcott
  • Re: speed of light, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: speed of light, Ron Ebert
  • Re: speed of light, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: speed of light, Ron Ebert
• Music Fairs, Doug Craigen
• Re: c in m/s (was A. Einstein and science-fairs), Ludwik Kowalski
• Chalupas, Jim Green
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Chalupas, brian whatcott
  • Re: Chalupas, paul o johnson
  • Re: Chalupas, Karl Trappe
  • Re: Chalupas, Raymond A. Rogoway
  • Re: Chalupas, Spagna Jr., George
  • Re: Chalupas, David Bowman
  • Re: Chalupas, Spagna Jr., George
  • Re: Chalupas, paul o johnson
• Ultrasonic, David Abineri
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Ultrasonic, Norman Lohstreter
  • Re: Ultrasonic, Ken Fox
  • Re: Ultrasonic, paul o johnson
  • Re: Ultrasonic, paul o johnson
  • Re: Ultrasonic, John Gastineau
  • Re: Ultrasonic, brian whatcott
  • Re: Ultrasonic, Norman Lohstreter
  • Re: Ultrasonic, Norman Lohstreter
  • Re: Ultrasonic, brian whatcott
  • Re: Ultrasonic, paul o johnson
  • Re: Ultrasonic, Norman Lohstreter
• Re: Chalupas (more OT), brian whatcott
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Chalupas (more OT), paul o johnson
  • Re: Chalupas (more OT), brian whatcott
  • Re: Chalupas (more OT), DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
• phys-L deteriorating?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: phys-L deteriorating?, Raymond A. Rogoway
  • Re: phys-L deteriorating?, Chuck Britton
  • Re: phys-L deteriorating?, sampere
  • Re: phys-L deteriorating?, paul o johnson
  • Re: phys-L deteriorating?, Karl Trappe
• Sorry, Bob Sciamanda
• Is phys-l slipping, Barlow Newbolt
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Is phys-l slipping, Dayton Labs
• Measureing the speed of light was - A. Einstein and science, Cliff Parker
• Re: Measuring the speed of light was - A. Einstein and scien, David Bowman
• Undergraduate Research Collaborations, Timothy Folkerts
• Re: internal or external, Barlow Newbolt
• Re: Cryogenics Bat, Thomas O'Neill
• Re: Grading schemes, Roger Freedman
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Grading schemes, Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: Grading schemes, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Grading schemes, Shapiro, Mark
• Re: Bimodal grades, Karl Trappe
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Bimodal grades, Leigh Palmer
• Internal or external?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Internal or external?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Internal or external?, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Internal or external?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Internal or external?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Internal or external?, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Internal or external?, Ed Schweber
  • Re: Internal or external?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Internal or external?, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Internal or external?, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Internal or external?, B.Surendranath Reddy
  • Re: Internal or external?, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Internal or external?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Internal or external?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Internal or external?, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Internal or external?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Internal or external?, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Internal or external?, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Internal or external?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Internal or external?, paul o johnson
  • Re: Internal or external?, Robert Carlson
  • Re: Internal or external?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Internal or external?, Robert Carlson
  • Re: Internal or external?, paul o johnson
  • Re: Internal or external?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Internal or external?, Carl E. Mungan
  • Re: Internal or external?, Carl E. Mungan
  • Re: Internal or external?, Larry Smith
• Re: Grading schemes(outrage), Joel Rauber
• UCLA physics course (non-rant), Joel Rauber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Joel Rauber
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Michael Edmiston
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Raymond A. Rogoway
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Jerome Epstein
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Marc Kossover
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Joel Rauber
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Richard Tarara
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Michael Edmiston
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Michael Edmiston
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Robert A Cohen
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant), Richard Grandy
• Should tutoring free?, Joel Rauber
• Re: UCLA physics course (non-rant) average grades, Michael Edmiston
• assigning final grades, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: assigning final grades, Leigh Palmer
• Re: Chalupas (long, wildly off-topic), brian whatcott
• Re: PHYS-L Digest - 8 Oct 1999 to 9 Oct 1999 - Special issue, Glenn A. Carlson
• Car talk 10-9-99 ie: Was that who I thought it was?, Brad Shue
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Car talk 10-9-99 ie: Was that who I thought it was?, Joel Rauber
• free-body diagrams, Joel Rauber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: free-body diagrams, John Denker
  • Re: free-body diagrams, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: free-body diagrams, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: free-body diagrams, Peter Schoch
  • Re: free-body diagrams, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: free-body diagrams, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: free-body diagrams, Karl Trappe
  • Re: free-body diagrams, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: free-body diagrams, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• ActivPhysics2, Alan Gibson
• Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), brian whatcott
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Cliff Parker
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Robert Carlson
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Jerome Epstein
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Cliff Parker
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Cliff Parker
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Robert Carlson
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), David Bowman
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Richard Tarara
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Michael Edmiston
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Jerome Epstein
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Richard Tarara
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Cliff Parker
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Clarence Bennett
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Jerome Epstein
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Joel Rauber
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), David Kardelis
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Cliff Parker
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: What is weight? (was Re: Internal or external?), Roger Freedman
• A glimpse., Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A glimpse., Inge H. A. Pettersen
  • Re: A glimpse., Cliff Parker
• Re: What is weight?, Timothy Folkerts
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: What is weight?, Timothy Folkerts
  • Re: What is weight?, Jim Green
  • Re: What is weight?, John Denker
  • Re: What is weight?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: What is weight?, John Denker
  • Re: What is weight?, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: What is weight?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: What is weight?, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: What is weight?, Jim Green
  • Re: What is weight?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: What is Weight?, Barlow Newbolt
  • Re: What is weight?, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: What is weight?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: What is weight?, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: What is weight?, Leigh Palmer
• ActivPhysics 2, Roger Freedman
• (horrible) examples of my treatment of weight, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: (horrible) examples of my treatment of weight, Frank M. Lanzafame
• Weightless physics, Laurent Hodges
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Weightless physics, Leigh Palmer
• the web posting problem - again, Leigh Palmer
• infinite square lattice of resistors, Carl E. Mungan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, Prof. John P. Ertel (wizard)
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, brian whatcott
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, David Bowman
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, David Bowman
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, David Bowman
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: infinite square lattice of resistors, David Bowman
• undergrad physics course sequence, Carl E. Mungan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: undergrad physics course sequence, Stephen Murray
  • Re: undergrad physics course sequence, Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno
  • Re: undergrad physics course sequence, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: undergrad physics course sequence, Joel Rauber
  • Re: undergrad physics course sequence, Greg Clements
• Re: infinite square lattice of resistors (addendum), David Bowman
• advanced undergrad labs, Bob Muir
• Measurement of mass, romanza
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Measurement of mass, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Measurement of mass, Robert Carlson
  • Re: Measurement of mass, Maurice Barnhill
  • Re: Measurement of mass, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Measurement of mass, Ken Fox
  • Re: Measurement of mass, brian whatcott
  • Re: Measurement of mass, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Measurement of mass, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: Measurement of mass, Ken Fox
• Newton is #2, Joseph Bellina
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newton is #2, Greg Puskar
  • Re: Newton is #2, Karl Trappe
• A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A weighty subject, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: A weighty subject, Arlyn DeBruyckere
  • Re: A weighty subject, Timothy Folkerts
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, brian whatcott
  • Re: A weighty subject, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, Jim Green
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A weighty subject, Jim Green
  • Re: A weighty subject, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A weighty subject, Clarence Bennett
  • Re: A weighty subject, Cliff Parker
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Cliff Parker
  • Re: A weighty subject, Jim Green
  • Re: A weighty subject, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Jim Green
  • Re: A weighty subject, Arlyn DeBruyckere
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A weighty subject, paul o johnson
  • Re: A weighty subject, paul o johnson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, paul o johnson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Arlyn DeBruyckere
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Jim Green
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Chuck Britton
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A weighty subject, Glenn Knapp
  • Re: A weighty subject, Timothy Folkerts
  • Re: A weighty subject, Glenn Knapp
  • Re: A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: A weighty subject, brian whatcott
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Clarence Bennett
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, Richard Tarara
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Richard Tarara
  • Re: A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, Chuck Britton
  • Re: A weighty subject, Richard Tarara
  • Re: A weighty subject, Timothy Folkerts
  • Re: A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Marc Kossover
  • Re: A weighty subject, Arlyn DeBruyckere
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A weighty subject, paul o johnson
  • Re: A weighty subject, paul o johnson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: A weighty subject, brian whatcott
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: A weighty subject, brian whatcott
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, brian whatcott
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Robert Carlson
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Jim Green
  • Re: A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: A weighty subject, Joel Rauber
  • Re: A weighty subject, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A weighty subject, Chuck Britton
  • Re: A weighty subject, brian whatcott
• Grades at Princeton (Was: UCLA physics course (non-rant)), Jon Bell
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Grades at Princeton (Was: UCLA physics course (non-rant)), Richard Grandy
  • Re: Grades at Princeton (Was: UCLA physics course (non-rant)), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Grades at Princeton (Was: UCLA physics course (non-rant)), Lois Breur Krause
• audio feedback, fred brace
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: audio feedback, brian whatcott
  • Re: audio feedback, Lois Breur Krause
  • Re: audio feedback, brian whatcott
• electronic stripes, David Bone
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: electronic stripes, John Denker
  • Re: electronic stripes, Roger Haar
  • Re: electronic stripes, John Denker
  • Re: electronic stripes, Jerry Lisantti
  • Re: electronic stripes, Bob Sciamanda
  • Electronic stripes, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Electronic stripes, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: electronic stripes, paul o johnson
  • Re: electronic stripes, paul o johnson
• Re: operationally inertial frames, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, A. R. Marlow
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, Jerome Epstein
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, John Denker
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, Joel Rauber
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, A. R. Marlow
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, John Denker
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, Joel Rauber
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, A. R. Marlow
  • Re: operationally inertial frames, A. R. Marlow
• Re infinite square lattice of resistors, Robert Blumenthal
• skydiving?, kyle forinash
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: skydiving?, Norman Lohstreter
  • Re: skydiving?, Dr. Richard Swanson
• Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Cliff Parker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, brian whatcott
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, brian whatcott
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, Brian McInnes
  • Re: Electronic balances was A weighty subject, paul o johnson
• FW: Vacuum in Science and Technology workshop (fwd), William Beaty
• ultrasonic update, Norman Lohstreter
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: ultrasonic update, paul o johnson
  • Re: ultrasonic update, Norman Lohstreter
  • Re: ultrasonic update, brian whatcott
  • Re: ultrasonic update, Daniel L. MacIsaac
• Vernacular (was A weighty subject), Ludwik Kowalski
• FREEFALL OR NOT, Richard Tarara
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: FREEFALL OR NOT, Richard Tarara
  • Re: FREEFALL OR NOT, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: FREEFALL OR NOT, John Mallinckrodt
• Re: A weighty subject - a reply to the fixed weighters..., brian whatcott
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A weighty subject - a reply to the fixed weighters..., Michael Edmiston
  • Re: A weighty subject - a reply to the fixed weighters..., brian whatcott
  • Re: A weighty subject - a reply to the fixed weighters..., Cliff Parker
  • Re: A weighty subject - a reply to the fixed weighters..., Bob Sciamanda
• Re: Laser beam, Gordon Smith
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Laser beam, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Laser beam, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Laser beam, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Laser beam, Ludwik Kowalski
• Re: A weighty subject - wrong?, Michael Edmiston
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A weighty subject - wrong?, Jim Green
  • Re: A weighty subject - wrong?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: A weighty subject - wrong?, Chuck Britton
• Re: Weight Discussion, Van E. Neie
• Ahh... vindication (balances), Michael Edmiston
• Re: Snell (in Calcite), Mojca Cepic
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Snell (in Calcite), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Snell (in Calcite), Gary Karshner
  • Re: Snell (in Calcite), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Snell (in Calcite), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Snell (in Calcite), Mojca Cepic
  • Re: Snell (in Calcite), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Snell (in Calcite), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Snell (in Calcite), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Snell (in Calcite), Mojca Cepic
• Proud father brags about his kid, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Proud father brags about his kid, Van E. Neie
  • Re: Proud father brags about his kid, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Proud father brags about his kid, Sam Sampere
• ice & water, Kathy Daniel
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: ice & water, Robert A Cohen
  • Re: ice & water, Leigh Palmer
• varying mass systems: rockets included (medium length), Joel Rauber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: varying mass systems: rockets included (medium length), Cliff Parker
  • Re: varying mass systems: rockets included (medium length), Cliff Parker
  • Re: varying mass systems: rockets included (medium length), Joel Rauber
  • Re: varying mass systems: rockets included (medium length), Joel Rauber
• Re: A weighty matter, Larry Cartwright
• Double Atwood, David Abineri
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Double Atwood, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Double Atwood, Ed Schweber
  • Re: Double Atwood, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Double Atwood, Bob Sciamanda
• Most Accurate Solar System Ephemeris, brian whatcott
• Obits, brian whatcott
• Re: A weighty subject /nitpicking, brian whatcott
• Re: Double Atwood (errata), John Mallinckrodt
• web page help, Leon Leonardo
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: web page help, Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: web page help, Brad Shue
  • Re: web page help, Peter Schoch
  • Re: web page help, Ron Ebert
  • Re: web page help, Peter Schoch
  • Re: web page help, Ron Ebert
  • Re: web page help, Peter Schoch
• summary of weight, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: summary of weight, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: summary of weight, John Denker
  • Re: summary of weight, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: summary of weight, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: summary of weight, John Denker
  • Re: summary of weight, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: summary of weight, John Denker
  • Re: summary of weight, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: summary of weight, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: summary of weight, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: summary of weight, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: summary of weight, Robert Carlson
  • Re: summary of weight, John Denker
  • Re: summary of weight, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: summary of weight, Robert Carlson
  • Re: summary of weight, brian whatcott
  • Re: summary of weight, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: summary of weight, brian whatcott
  • Re: summary of weight, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: summary of weight, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: summary of weight, brian whatcott
• ActivPhysics2:Thanks for the help, Alan Gibson
• Re: summary of elevator equivalence, John Denker
• Weightlessness, romanza
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Weightlessness, Robert Carlson
  • Re: Weightlessness, Bob Sciamanda
• Impact of Spheroidicity, paul o johnson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Impact of Spheroidicity, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Impact of Spheroidicity, paul o johnson
  • Re: Impact of Spheroidicity, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Impact of Spheroidicity, David Bowman
  • Re: Impact of Spheroidicity, paul o johnson
  • Re: Impact of Spheroidicity, Leigh Palmer
• Experts needed, any takers?, Larry Cartwright
• chem_weight vs. phys_weight, John Denker
• Newton's Second Law, Barlow Newbolt
• poundals, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: poundals, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: poundals, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: poundals, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: poundals, Jerome Epstein
• Re: poundal vs. poundee, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: poundal vs. poundee, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: poundal vs. poundee, Richard Tarara
  • Re: poundal vs. poundee, Clarence Bennett
  • Re: poundal vs. poundee, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: poundal vs. poundee, paul o johnson
  • Re: poundal vs. poundee, Jerome Epstein
• Re: revision of Newton's Second Law, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: revision of Newton's Second Law, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: revision of Newton's Second Law, Rondo Jeffery
  • Re: revision of Newton's Second Law, Doug Craigen
• summary of summary of weight, Joel Rauber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: summary of summary of weight, Richard Tarara
  • Re: summary of summary of weight, Margaret Mazzolini
• inertial forces (definition), Joel Rauber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Jerome Epstein
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), brian whatcott
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Joel Rauber
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Joel Rauber
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Joel Rauber
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), brian whatcott
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), brian whatcott
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
• Humor was Re:poundal vs. poundee, Vacek Miglus
• Re: Poundal, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Poundal, Jerome Epstein
• Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Cliff Parker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), David Bowman
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), brian whatcott
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Cliff Parker
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Cliff Parker
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), brian whatcott
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Cliff Parker
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Robert Carlson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), David Bowman
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), paul o johnson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Robert Carlson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), David Bowman
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Chuck Britton
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), paul o johnson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), paul o johnson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Robert A Cohen
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Joseph Bellina
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Joel Rauber
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Stan Greenspoon
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Joseph Bellina
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), paul o johnson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Chuck Britton
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Robert Carlson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Ed Schweber
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Hugh Haskell
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Brian McInnes
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Ed Schweber
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Joel Rauber
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), paul o johnson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), brian whatcott
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Brian McInnes
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Ed Schweber
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), paul o johnson
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition), brian whatcott
• ZORB!, William Beaty
• Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, Jerome Epstein
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, Brian McInnes
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, brian whatcott
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, Brian McInnes
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, Daniel L. MacIsaac
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, brian whatcott
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, Larry Cartwright
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units-STONES, Michael Edmiston
• Small telescopes, Dr. James Mackey
• Re: More and more weight/mass Units, Richard Grandy
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: More and more weight/mass Units, John Mallinckrodt
  • More and more weight/mass Units, Doug Craigen
• John Mallinckrodt's Mug, Joel Rauber
• Re: Newton's 3rd law?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law?, brian whatcott
• ANNOUNCING CHAUTAUQUA COURSES ON ACTIVE LEARNING FOR SPRING, 2000 (fwd), Daniel L. MacIsaac
• Linearizing Graphs, Ed Schweber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, John Cooper
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, Ed Schweber
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, Peter Schoch
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, Spagna Jr., George
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, John Gastineau
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, John Cooper
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, THOMAS SANDIN
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, Prof. John P. Ertel (wizard)
  • Re: Linearizing Graphs, paul o johnson
• not physics, Ludwik Kowalski
• Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition) (2), Eugene P. Mosca
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition) (2), Leigh Palmer
• You get a rod and I'll get a pole, Barlow Newbolt
• Call your US Rep about Str. A's Act, today, Jane Jackson
• Re: Call your Congressman about Str A's Act, Jane Jackson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Call your Congressman about Str A's Act, Dr. James Mackey
  • Re: Call your Congressman about Str A's Act, Daniel L. MacIsaac
• Unnoticed WIN/NT Y2K bug, Bob Sciamanda
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Unnoticed WIN/NT Y2K bug, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Unnoticed WIN/NT Y2K bug, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Unnoticed WIN/NT Y2K bug, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Unnoticed WIN/NT Y2K bug, Bob Sciamanda
• Re: call your US Rep today ...., Jane Jackson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: call your US Rep today ...., Jim Green
• Re: call your Congressman today..., Jane Jackson
• PDT Gain Factor, Eugene P. Mosca
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: PDT Gain Factor, Daniel L. MacIsaac
• stellar spectra, fred brace
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: stellar spectra, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: stellar spectra, paul o johnson
  • Re: stellar spectra, brian whatcott
• Re: Forces w/o third-law partners???????, John S. Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Forces w/o third-law partners???????, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Forces w/o third-law partners???????, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Forces w/o third-law partners???????, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Forces w/o third-law partners???????, John Denker
  • Re: Forces w/o third-law partners???????, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Forces w/o third-law partners???????, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Forces w/o third-law partners???????, Jim Green
• Physics education (fwd), Joseph Bellina
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Physics education (fwd), Karl Trappe
  • Re: Physics education (fwd), Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: Physics education (fwd), Joseph Bellina
  • Physics education (fwd), Richard Hake
• Rods, poles, and other units that go bump in the night, Vern Lindberg
• astronomy list, Dr. James Mackey
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: astronomy list, Ron Ebert
  • Re: Astronomy List, Margaret Mazzolini
  • Re: astronomy list, William J. Larson
• Re: gravitation conserves momentum, John Denker
• Re: conservation in rotating frames, John Denker
• FCI Gain Factor, Richard Hake
• Newton's third and centrifugal forces., Rick Tarara
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newton's third and centrifugal forces., Rick Tarara
  • Re: Newton's third and centrifugal forces., John Mallinckrodt
• [no subject], Bob Sciamanda
• [no subject], DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
• Light???, Cliff Parker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Light???, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Light???, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Light???, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Light???, Cliff Parker
  • Re: Light???, William Beaty
• Re: Light, resonance, index of refraction,, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Light, resonance, index of refraction,, Cliff Parker
• Re: Light, virtual processes don't explain refraction, John Denker
• Electric Current "Turbulence", Ed Schweber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Electric Current "Turbulence", brian whatcott
  • Re: Electric Current "Turbulence", William Beaty
• Re: Light -photon "saturation", Ed Schweber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Light -photon "saturation", brian whatcott
  • Re: Light -photon "saturation", Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Light -photon "saturation", William Beaty
• Re: bleaching, John Denker
• Re: Electric Current Turbulence, John Denker
• FBD, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: FBD, John Mallinckrodt
• Re FBD, Robert Blumenthal
• Textbooks, Leigh Palmer
• Re: Light, resonance, index of refraction, John Denker
• Aurorae?, Chuck Britton
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Aurorae?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Aurorae?, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Aurorae?, Doug Craigen
• Professional MS Degrees in Science - fwd from Tobias, Richard Hake
• Re: Flat Earth Chronology, William J. Larson
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Flat Earth Chronology, Anne Pfannkoch
  • Flat Earth Chronology, Jim Green
  • Re: Flat Earth Chronology, Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: Flat Earth Chronology, brian whatcott
  • Re: Flat Earth Chronology, Richard Grandy
  • Re: Flat Earth Chronology, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Flat Earth Chronology, Jim Green
  • Re: Flat Earth Chronology, Joseph Bellina
  • Re: Flat Earth Chronology, Gary Karshner
• Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: work done by friction, Brian McInnes
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, Chuck Britton
  • Re: work done by friction, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: work done by friction, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: work done by friction, Chuck Britton
  • Re: work done by friction, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: work done by friction, Richard Tarara
  • Re: work done by friction, Jim Green
  • Re: work done by friction, Joel Rauber
  • Re: work done by friction, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: work done by friction, Brian McInnes
  • Re: work done by friction, Chuck Britton
  • Re: work done by friction, Brian McInnes
  • Re: work done by friction, Brian McInnes
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: work done by friction, Brian McInnes
  • Re: work done by friction, Brian McInnes
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, Chuck Britton
  • Re: work done by friction, Brian McInnes
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, Joel Rauber
  • Re: work done by friction, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: work done by friction, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: work done by friction, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: work done by friction, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: work done by friction, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: work done by friction, Robert Carlson
  • Re: work done by friction, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: work done by friction, Robert Carlson
  • Re: work done by friction, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: work done by friction, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, Mojca Cepic
  • Re: work done by friction, Jim Green
  • Re: work done by friction, Brian McInnes
  • Re: work done by friction, John Denker
  • Re: work done by friction, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: work done by friction, Jim Green
  • Re: work done by friction, brian whatcott
• by Newton (was Snell in Calcite), Ludwik Kowalski
• Re: Energy before work" (was work done by friction), Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Energy before work" (was work done by friction), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Energy before work" (was work done by friction), paul o johnson
  • Re: Energy before work" (was work done by friction), Ludwik Kowalski
• R: Re: Energy before work" (was work done by friction), Paolo Cavallo
• KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), David Bowman
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), Richard Tarara
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), Joel Rauber
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), David Bowman
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), David Bowman
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), Ed Schweber
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), Joel Rauber
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), David Bowman
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), Joel Rauber
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), David Bowman
  • Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...), Ed Schweber
• mystery photomultiplier, James McLean
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: mystery photomultiplier, brian whatcott
• Re: KE & temperature, Chuck Britton
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: KE & temperature, John Denker
  • Re: KE & temperature, David Bowman
  • Re: KE & temperature, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Conventional Current, Chuck Britton
• Energy as ability to do work, Lemmerhirt, Fred
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, John Denker
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Lemmerhirt, Fred
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Jerry Lisantti
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, John Denker
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Joel Rauber
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Michael Edmiston
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Lemmerhirt, Fred
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Jim Green
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, John Denker
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Chuck Britton
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Energy as ability to do work, Chuck Britton
• Re: work done by pushing, Bob Sciamanda
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: work done by pushing, John Denker
• Introduction and Request for Assistance (fwd), Daniel L. MacIsaac
• "The Amateur Scientist" columns on CDROM, William Beaty
• Axion? Huh?, Rupert Greenheart Incarnate, Best of the Best
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Axion? Huh?, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: Axion? Huh?, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: Axion? Huh?, William Beaty
  • Re: Axion? Huh?, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: Axion? Huh?, Dennis Krause
• Re: definition of energy, John Denker
• I surrender, Leigh Palmer
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: I surrender, Joel Rauber
• Physics curriculum - first advanced course, Dale Orth
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Physics curriculum - first advanced course, Wilson Gonzalez-espada
• Re: definition of energy (without work?), Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: definition of energy (without work?), Joel Rauber
  • Re: definition of energy (without work?), John Denker
  • Re: definition of energy (without work?), Joel Rauber
  • Re: definition of energy (without work?), John Denker
  • Re: definition of energy (without work?), Chuck Britton
  • Re: definition of energy (without work?), Ludwik Kowalski
• Re: SciAm AmSci index, William Beaty
• off-topic: gerund vs. participle, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: off-topic: gerund vs. participle, felina
• Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Doug Craigen
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Herbert H Gottlieb
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Richard Grandy
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Hugh Haskell
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Zach Wolff
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Richard Tarara
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Karl Trappe
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, paul o johnson
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Doug Craigen
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Zach Wolff
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Rick Tarara
  • Re: Off topic: Humans, Robots and Religion, Zach Wolff
• Student Question, James Harris
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Student Question, John Denker
  • Re: Student Question, Larry Cartwright
  • Re: Student Question, Herbert H Gottlieb
• Re: Ancient Premise, Karl Trappe
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Ancient Premise, Jim Diamond
  • Re: Ancient Premise, Herbert H Gottlieb
• Re: ex falso quodlibet, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: ex falso quodlibet, Karl Trappe
  • Re: ex falso quodlibet, Karl Trappe
  • Re: ex falso quodlibet, Richard Grandy
  • Re: ex falso quodlibet, Miguel A. Santos
• Fw: update.454, Bob Sciamanda
• why pseudowork?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: why pseudowork?, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork?, Brian McInnes
  • Re: why pseudowork?, Jim Green
  • Re: why pseudowork?, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: why pseudowork?, Jim Green
  • Re: why pseudowork?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: why pseudowork?, John Mallinckrodt
• Published today in local paper, FYI; re evolution, JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439
• Re: off-topic: gerund/participle/verbal noun, brian whatcott
• Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Jim Green
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Denker
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Richard Tarara
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Leigh Palmer
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Richard Tarara
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Jim Green
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Jim Green
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Richard Tarara
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Michael Burns-Kaurin
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), brian whatcott
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), brian whatcott
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Robert A Cohen
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), brian whatcott
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), John Denker
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Jim Green
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), A. R. Marlow
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Jim Green
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: why pseudowork (NOT), Joseph Bellina
• Re: off-topic: grammar, Robert Curtis
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: off-topic: grammar, John Denker
• Re: ex contradictione quodlibet, John Denker
• Leigh's paradox (Re: work done by friction), Ludwik Kowalski
• Science vs. religion, Leigh Palmer
• [no subject], felina
• Why do we care about work?, John Mallinckrodt
• macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom (was: why pseudowork (NOT), Joel Rauber
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom (was: why pseudowork (NOT), John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom (was: why pseudowork (NOT), Leigh Palmer
• Re: PseudoWork ????, Bob Sciamanda
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • PseudoWork ????, Jim Green
  • Re: PseudoWork ????, John Denker
  • Re: PseudoWork ????, Richard Tarara
  • Re: PseudoWork ????, Jim Green
  • Re: PseudoWork ????, Bob Sciamanda
• test-lost /late posts, Bob Sciamanda
• Re: no thermal energy, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: no thermal energy, Jim Green
  • Re: no thermal energy, John Denker
• from NSTA: Straight A's Act; science in Title I, Jane Jackson
• Software for Question Bank, romanza
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Software for Question Bank, Prof. John P. Ertel (wizard)
• testing, romanza
• Re: the wall recoils, John Denker
• Is pseudowork "bad" work?, John Mallinckrodt
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Is pseudowork "bad" work?, Jim Green
• Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom (was: why pseudowork(NOT), Bob Sciamanda
• Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom (was: whypseudowork(NOT), Bob Sciamanda
• [no subject], felina
• irreversible adiabatic compression of an ideal gas, Carl E. Mungan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: irreversible adiabatic compression of an ideal gas, brian whatcott
  • Re: irreversible adiabatic compression of an ideal gas, John Denker
  • Re: irreversible adiabatic compression of an ideal gas, Leigh Palmer
• Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, John Denker
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, Leigh Palmer
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, John Denker
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, John Denker
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, Rick Tarara
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, brian whatcott
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, Rick Tarara
  • Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom, Jim Green
• Where are the girls?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Where are the girls?, Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: Where are the girls?, Ludwik Kowalski
  • Re: Where are the girls?, Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: Where are the girls?, Jim Green
  • Re: Where are the girls?, Shapiro, Mark
• Why do we care about heat?, John Mallinckrodt
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Why do we care about heat?, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Why do we care about heat?, John S. Denker
  • Re: Why do we care about heat?, Daniel Schroeder
  • Re: Why do we care about heat?, Bob Sciamanda
  • Re: Why do we care about heat?, Jim Green
  • Re: Why do we care about heat?, John Mallinckrodt
  • Re: Why do we care about heat?, Jim Green
• This Week, Jim Green
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: This Week, Shapiro, Mark
• mini Y2K?, Bob Sciamanda
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: mini Y2K?, Shapiro, Mark
  • Re: mini Y2K?, brian whatcott
  • Re: mini Y2K?, Jim Green
  • Re: mini Y2K?, brian whatcott