Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #579421 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-04 13:49 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-03-06 20:42 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 164 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 13:49 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-04 11:37 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 18:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 11:28 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 21:17 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-05 18:15 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 13:25 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-06 12:02 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-04 10:20 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-04 19:48 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 21:09 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 13:41 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-05 11:41 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 16:49 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz complains that he's been assfucked "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 17:04 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz complains that he's been assfucked Ober Corn <nm@cvslm.ca> - 2022-03-06 22:33 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-06 16:11 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 21:30 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-04 11:09 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 21:17 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 16:20 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 11:16 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 14:01 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Grant Knox <iir@nnewa.ca> - 2022-03-04 22:22 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 08:19 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-06 12:31 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 20:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-06 15:21 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 13:38 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-07 12:15 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 18:32 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 10:47 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:25 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 20:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 08:00 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 16:15 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:17 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 06:00 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 14:13 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 07:02 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 16:16 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 14:39 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 21:58 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-11 11:51 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 14:59 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 23:08 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:12 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:10 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 06:54 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 15:05 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-13 20:22 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:13 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 06:42 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 15:05 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 06:36 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 15:48 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-18 07:14 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 18:01 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-18 21:30 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 22:25 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-20 11:48 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 12:32 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 12:43 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 06:42 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 14:47 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 07:31 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 15:37 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 08:01 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 16:18 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 09:16 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 12:56 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-18 07:22 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 13:54 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 18:01 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 04:52 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 12:10 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 05:26 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 05:46 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 13:11 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 06:52 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-20 12:01 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 09:21 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 09:52 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-20 12:53 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 12:03 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-20 14:40 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 20:10 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 14:23 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-20 22:29 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-20 18:18 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 11:43 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-21 17:51 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 00:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-22 11:12 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 16:22 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-22 11:54 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-22 17:19 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 21:14 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-22 21:33 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-22 22:16 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 10:59 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 18:28 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-22 00:41 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 06:53 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 09:48 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 11:43 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 07:43 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 15:04 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 11:53 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 22:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 15:27 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 00:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-22 05:41 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 14:51 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 14:55 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-23 07:46 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 15:23 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-24 05:40 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 13:55 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 09:03 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-25 06:46 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-25 18:32 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 18:46 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-26 05:59 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 13:13 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-26 06:39 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 14:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Russ Diaz <rdi@urvndm.mx> - 2022-03-26 13:45 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 01:55 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-25 15:20 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-26 05:48 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-25 07:34 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-22 00:48 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 09:56 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 11:43 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 07:26 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 15:04 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 08:47 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 15:57 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 12:19 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 14:54 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 15:12 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 02:06 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 04:13 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-21 17:16 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-22 18:41 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 19:32 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 06:47 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-23 15:32 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-22 22:17 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 22:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 07:47 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 07:48 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 05:18 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 05:44 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 10:22 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ober Corn <nm@cvslm.ca> - 2022-03-06 20:42 +0000
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 13:49 +0000 |
| Subject | How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics |
| Message-ID | <svt5d2$vag$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being a chemist. On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not interested enough in the subject to learn it. It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in handy. And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will still be aware that you are not telling the truth. It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does not matter how many physicists you have as friends. If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 11:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j8f12tF7uosU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579421 |
What follows below, posted by Odd Bodkin, is a fundamentalist approach to the topic of physics. In reality, any human activity can have a range of interest. An "all or nothing" view, as well spelled out below, is what defines fundamentalism. Is one's level of interest in physics important to discussions here? In a word, no. Please see: https://scout.wisc.edu/archives/r115/sciphysicsrelativity On 3/4/2022 7:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > > If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > a chemist. > > On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > interested enough in the subject to learn it. > > It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > handy. > > And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > > It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > > If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svtkgg$131t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579431 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > What follows below, posted by Odd Bodkin, is a fundamentalist approach > to the topic of physics. > > In reality, any human activity can have a range of interest. An "all or > nothing" view, as well spelled out below, is what defines > fundamentalism. > > Is one's level of interest in physics important to discussions here? In > a word, no. Please see: To be clear, I was not saying that those with only a minor interest in relativity should not post here. What I wanted to make clear is that level of interest is measurable and strongly correlated with whether you’ve read physics books aimed to teach physics. I fully expect that there will be people posting here that have only superficial interest in relativity and concordantly slim exposure to reading physics. I will also remark, though, that being only lightly interested in physics will also mean that your opinions will be correctly regarded as poorly informed and therefore less valuable, therefore less likely to generate a serious or thoughtful response. A distinguishing characteristic of a crank is being insufficiently interested in the the subject and consequently also being very poorly informed, while at the same time making strong statements that he feels should be treated seriously. It’s the demand for attention while having little interest in the subject that is … slimy. > > https://scout.wisc.edu/archives/r115/sciphysicsrelativity > > > On 3/4/2022 7:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >> >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >> a chemist. >> >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >> >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >> handy. >> >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >> >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >> >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 11:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97c1496a-10a4-4987-ae4d-563475ff6177n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579433 |
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:07:16 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > > > What follows below, posted by Odd Bodkin, is a fundamentalist approach > > to the topic of physics. > > > > In reality, any human activity can have a range of interest. An "all or > > nothing" view, as well spelled out below, is what defines > > fundamentalism. > > > > Is one's level of interest in physics important to discussions here? In > > a word, no. Please see: > To be clear, I was not saying that those with only a minor interest in > relativity should not post here. What I wanted to make clear is that level > of interest is measurable and strongly correlated with whether you’ve read > physics books aimed to teach physics. I fully expect that there will be > people posting here that have only superficial interest in relativity and > concordantly slim exposure to reading physics. > > I will also remark, though, that being only lightly interested in physics > will also mean that your opinions will be correctly regarded as poorly > informed and therefore less valuable, therefore less likely to generate a > serious or thoughtful response. > > A distinguishing characteristic of a crank is being insufficiently > interested in the the subject and consequently also being very poorly > informed, while at the same time making strong statements that he feels > should be treated seriously. It’s the demand for attention while having > little interest in the subject that is … slimy. > > > > https://scout.wisc.edu/archives/r115/sciphysicsrelativity > > > > > > On 3/4/2022 7:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > >> > >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > >> a chemist. > >> > >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > >> > >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > >> handy. > >> > >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > >> > >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > >> > >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Bodkin, do you ever read what you post? I see you slowly descending into dementia, as your frustration that come out of your struggling with what you did and did not in life is becoming a torture. Read the stupidity that you're posting today, regarding the "strenght of interests in physics", as if it could be measured: 1. minor interest in relativity. 2. level of interest is measurable and strongly correlated with whether you’ve read physics books 3. people posting here that have only superficial interest in relativity 4. being only lightly interested in physics 5. crank is being insufficiently interested in the the subject 6. demand for attention while having little interest in the subject Are you having a nervous breakdown? Do you regret so much not having got a degree in physics? Is the weight of 800 books too much for your spine? Are you fucking crazy? You're using almost 50% of the bandwidth of this newsgroup, on yearly average, and still fail to achieve satisfaction! Really, you are becoming more and more what you hate! You're becoming a crank! Why don't come out of the closet for once, and stop lying about yourself and your stupid woodworking? Answer my question: What do you do every single day between 5:30 PM and 6:00 PM, when you stop posting? Bodkin, you can't escape from behavioral patterns, and I got yours (I can even write the "Bodkin's Equation of Daily Activities (BEDA)". You are sitting there every fucking day, 15 hours a day, posting here and judging everyone. What's wrong with you, man? The truth will make you free. Come out!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svtvkv$iaj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579452 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:07:16 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> >>> What follows below, posted by Odd Bodkin, is a fundamentalist approach >>> to the topic of physics. >>> >>> In reality, any human activity can have a range of interest. An "all or >>> nothing" view, as well spelled out below, is what defines >>> fundamentalism. >>> >>> Is one's level of interest in physics important to discussions here? In >>> a word, no. Please see: >> To be clear, I was not saying that those with only a minor interest in >> relativity should not post here. What I wanted to make clear is that level >> of interest is measurable and strongly correlated with whether you’ve read >> physics books aimed to teach physics. I fully expect that there will be >> people posting here that have only superficial interest in relativity and >> concordantly slim exposure to reading physics. >> >> I will also remark, though, that being only lightly interested in physics >> will also mean that your opinions will be correctly regarded as poorly >> informed and therefore less valuable, therefore less likely to generate a >> serious or thoughtful response. >> >> A distinguishing characteristic of a crank is being insufficiently >> interested in the the subject and consequently also being very poorly >> informed, while at the same time making strong statements that he feels >> should be treated seriously. It’s the demand for attention while having >> little interest in the subject that is … slimy. >>> >>> https://scout.wisc.edu/archives/r115/sciphysicsrelativity >>> >>> >>> On 3/4/2022 7:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >>>> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >>>> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >>>> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >>>> >>>> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >>>> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >>>> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >>>> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >>>> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >>>> a chemist. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >>>> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >>>> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >>>> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >>>> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >>>> >>>> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >>>> handy. >>>> >>>> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >>>> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >>>> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >>>> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >>>> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >>>> >>>> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >>>> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >>>> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >>>> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >>>> >>>> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Bodkin, do you ever read what you post? > > I see you slowly descending into dementia, as your frustration that come > out of your struggling with what you did and did not in life > is becoming a torture. > > Read the stupidity that you're posting today, regarding the "strenght of > interests in physics", as if it could be measured: > > 1. minor interest in relativity. > 2. level of interest is measurable and strongly correlated with whether > you’ve read physics books > 3. people posting here that have only superficial interest in relativity > 4. being only lightly interested in physics > 5. crank is being insufficiently interested in the the subject > 6. demand for attention while having little interest in the subject > > Are you having a nervous breakdown? > Do you regret so much not having got a degree in physics? > Is the weight of 800 books too much for your spine? > > Are you fucking crazy? You're using almost 50% of the bandwidth of this > newsgroup, on yearly average, and still fail to > achieve satisfaction! > > Really, you are becoming more and more what you hate! You're becoming a crank! > > Why don't come out of the closet for once, and stop lying about yourself > and your stupid woodworking? What do you think I’m lying about? What’s your “real truth” alternative? > > Answer my question: What do you do every single day between 5:30 PM and > 6:00 PM, when you stop posting? I take a crap. I walk the dogs. I circle with my employees. I call my mother. What’s your obsession about? > > Bodkin, you can't escape from behavioral patterns, and I got yours (I can > even write the "Bodkin's Equation of Daily Activities (BEDA)". > > You are sitting there every fucking day, 15 hours a day, posting here and > judging everyone. What's wrong with you, man? > > The truth will make you free. Come out! > > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 18:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j8icpjFrg61U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579433 |
On 3/4/2022 12:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> >> What follows below, posted by Odd Bodkin, is a fundamentalist approach >> to the topic of physics. >> >> In reality, any human activity can have a range of interest. An "all or >> nothing" view, as well spelled out below, is what defines >> fundamentalism. >> >> Is one's level of interest in physics important to discussions here? In >> a word, no. Please see: > > To be clear, I was not saying that those with only a minor interest in > relativity should not post here. What I wanted to make clear is that level > of interest is measurable and strongly correlated with whether you’ve read > physics books aimed to teach physics. I fully expect that there will be > people posting here that have only superficial interest in relativity and > concordantly slim exposure to reading physics. Your "expectations" are just that, and nothing more, considering you've cited no studies supporting your stated position. All the cranks who post here also have unsupported expectations similar to yours in that they cite no foundation other than personal opinion while usually avoiding admissions that their postings have no basis other than opinion. > > I will also remark, though, that being only lightly interested in physics > will also mean that your opinions will be correctly regarded as poorly > informed and therefore less valuable, therefore less likely to generate a > serious or thoughtful response. Please do tell us, are you using the same sort of "logic" that you decry when others use it as a foundation for their postings? Because you have no cited basis and I am interested in knowing just how you arrived at this thesis. I've kept silent for several iterations of your postings that smack of the pot calling the kettle black but the time has come to call you to the mat to explain yourself. > A distinguishing characteristic of a crank is being insufficiently > interested in the the subject and consequently also being very poorly > informed, while at the same time making strong statements that he feels > should be treated seriously. It’s the demand for attention while having > little interest in the subject that is … slimy. Please check your posting, especially your final paragraph above, for sliminess. If you give it a reasonable reading you should discover yet another iteration of the pot calling the kettle black. I realize this is being repetitive, but no more so than your postings of late. I usually just let such things slide but that seems to enable the sort of nonsense you've resorted to in replying to me. You would be well advised to abandon any "knee jerk" replies that you may be tempted to make similar to your recent replies to em. In fact, please don't post at all unless you can discover some authoritative material to back up your opinion(s.) <snip> -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 13:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t02co8$r0e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579581 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2022 12:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> >>> What follows below, posted by Odd Bodkin, is a fundamentalist approach >>> to the topic of physics. >>> >>> In reality, any human activity can have a range of interest. An "all or >>> nothing" view, as well spelled out below, is what defines >>> fundamentalism. >>> >>> Is one's level of interest in physics important to discussions here? In >>> a word, no. Please see: >> >> To be clear, I was not saying that those with only a minor interest in >> relativity should not post here. What I wanted to make clear is that level >> of interest is measurable and strongly correlated with whether you’ve read >> physics books aimed to teach physics. I fully expect that there will be >> people posting here that have only superficial interest in relativity and >> concordantly slim exposure to reading physics. > > Your "expectations" are just that, and nothing more, considering you've > cited no studies supporting your stated position. > > All the cranks who post here also have unsupported expectations similar > to yours in that they cite no foundation other than personal opinion > while usually avoiding admissions that their postings have no basis > other than opinion. > >>> I will also remark, though, that being only lightly interested in physics >> will also mean that your opinions will be correctly regarded as poorly >> informed and therefore less valuable, therefore less likely to generate a >> serious or thoughtful response. > > Please do tell us, are you using the same sort of "logic" that you decry > when others use it as a foundation for their postings? Because you have > no cited basis and I am interested in knowing just how you arrived at > this thesis. I've kept silent for several iterations of your postings > that smack of the pot calling the kettle black but the time has come to > call you to the mat to explain yourself. > >> A distinguishing characteristic of a crank is being insufficiently >> interested in the the subject and consequently also being very poorly >> informed, while at the same time making strong statements that he feels >> should be treated seriously. It’s the demand for attention while having >> little interest in the subject that is … slimy. > > Please check your posting, especially your final paragraph above, for > sliminess. If you give it a reasonable reading you should discover yet > another iteration of the pot calling the kettle black. I realize this is > being repetitive, but no more so than your postings of late. I usually > just let such things slide but that seems to enable the sort of nonsense > you've resorted to in replying to me. You would be well advised to > abandon any "knee jerk" replies that you may be tempted to make similar > to your recent replies to em. In fact, please don't post at all unless > you can discover some authoritative material to back up your opinion(s.) Authoritative material about what? That interest in a subject is strongly correlated with willingness to study instructional materials in the subject? Or that cranks make poorly informed but strong statements that they’d like to have treated as seriously as more informed ones? > > <snip> > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 12:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j8kb9eF8aliU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579609 |
On 3/6/2022 7:25 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/4/2022 12:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> What follows below, posted by Odd Bodkin, is a fundamentalist approach >>>> to the topic of physics. >>>> >>>> In reality, any human activity can have a range of interest. An "all or >>>> nothing" view, as well spelled out below, is what defines >>>> fundamentalism. >>>> >>>> Is one's level of interest in physics important to discussions here? In >>>> a word, no. Please see: >>> >>> To be clear, I was not saying that those with only a minor interest in >>> relativity should not post here. What I wanted to make clear is that level >>> of interest is measurable and strongly correlated with whether you’ve read >>> physics books aimed to teach physics. I fully expect that there will be >>> people posting here that have only superficial interest in relativity and >>> concordantly slim exposure to reading physics. >> >> Your "expectations" are just that, and nothing more, considering you've >> cited no studies supporting your stated position. >> >> All the cranks who post here also have unsupported expectations similar >> to yours in that they cite no foundation other than personal opinion >> while usually avoiding admissions that their postings have no basis >> other than opinion. >> >>>> I will also remark, though, that being only lightly interested in physics >>> will also mean that your opinions will be correctly regarded as poorly >>> informed and therefore less valuable, therefore less likely to generate a >>> serious or thoughtful response. >> >> Please do tell us, are you using the same sort of "logic" that you decry >> when others use it as a foundation for their postings? Because you have >> no cited basis and I am interested in knowing just how you arrived at >> this thesis. I've kept silent for several iterations of your postings >> that smack of the pot calling the kettle black but the time has come to >> call you to the mat to explain yourself. >> >>> A distinguishing characteristic of a crank is being insufficiently >>> interested in the the subject and consequently also being very poorly >>> informed, while at the same time making strong statements that he feels >>> should be treated seriously. It’s the demand for attention while having >>> little interest in the subject that is … slimy. >> >> Please check your posting, especially your final paragraph above, for >> sliminess. If you give it a reasonable reading you should discover yet >> another iteration of the pot calling the kettle black. I realize this is >> being repetitive, but no more so than your postings of late. I usually >> just let such things slide but that seems to enable the sort of nonsense >> you've resorted to in replying to me. You would be well advised to >> abandon any "knee jerk" replies that you may be tempted to make similar >> to your recent replies to em. In fact, please don't post at all unless >> you can discover some authoritative material to back up your opinion(s.) > > Authoritative material about what? Your usual side3step is noted and accepted as your final answer. Thanks. I'm done with this topic. > That interest in a subject is strongly correlated with willingness to study > instructional materials in the subject? > > Or that cranks make poorly informed but strong statements that they’d like > to have treated as seriously as more informed ones? -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 10:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19e49842-ab2f-4aee-b50b-55bb3686b478n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579421 |
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > > If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > a chemist. > > On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > interested enough in the subject to learn it. > > It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > handy. > > And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > > It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > > If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. Bodkin, Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. If the internet existed back in those days, I wonder of if Bodkilonius would have posted that Galileo needed to read more books rather than write them?? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 19:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <L9tUJ.8660$dS2.5487@fx11.ams4> |
| In reply to | #579437 |
Den 04.03.2022 19:20, skrev patdolan: > > Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. 40 points! https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svtv6t$b4c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579437 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >> >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >> a chemist. >> >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >> >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >> handy. >> >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >> >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >> >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > Bodkin, > > Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after > he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. 1. Galileo was widely read. 2. Galileo performed real experiments and made quantitative experiments. 3. Where he discovered things were wrong, it was because of those experimental observations, not because of “logical thinking”. 4. Galileo did not descend into self-amused babbling due to excessive drinking. > > If the internet existed back in those days, I wonder of if Bodkilonius > would have posted that Galileo needed to read more books rather than write them?? He did read more books than he wrote. You? Congratulations for scoring 40 points on the crank index for comparing yourself to Galileo. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 13:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6222876C.76A5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #579460 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > >> > >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > >> a chemist. > >> > >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > >> > >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > >> handy. > >> > >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > >> > >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > >> > >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > > > Bodkin, > > > > Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after > > he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. > > 1. Galileo was widely read. > > 2. Galileo performed real experiments and made quantitative experiments. > > 3. Where he discovered things were wrong, it was because of those > experimental observations, not because of “logical thinkingâ€. > > 4. Galileo did not descend into self-amused babbling due to excessive > drinking. You forgot number 5...didn't he invented the Cuckoo Clock??? Cuckoo Cuckoo Cuckoo -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 11:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6223BCE9.BAB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #579464 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > > >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > > >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > > >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > > >> > > >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > > >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > > >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > > >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > > >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > > >> a chemist. > > >> > > >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > > >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > > >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > > >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > > >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > > >> > > >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > > >> handy. > > >> > > >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > > >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > > >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > > >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > > >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > > >> > > >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > > >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > > >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > > >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > > >> > > >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > > > > > Bodkin, > > > > > > Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after > > > he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. > > > > 1. Galileo was widely read. > > > > 2. Galileo performed real experiments and made quantitative experiments. > > > > 3. Where he discovered things were wrong, it was because of those > > experimental observations, not because of “logical thinkingâ€. > > > > 4. Galileo did not descend into self-amused babbling due to excessive > > drinking. > > You forgot number 5...didn't he invented the Cuckoo Clock??? > > Cuckoo > Cuckoo > Cuckoo Then Albert Einstein used some sort of Cuckoo Clock (not a wristwatch clock) at the patent office to figure out trains schedules. and Voila, relativity war born. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 16:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8d22daa2-7a21-4f4a-aeb7-c40b2b652833n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579545 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > > > >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > > > >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > > > >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > > > >> > > > >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > > > >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > > > >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > > > >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > > > >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > > > >> a chemist. > > > >> > > > >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > > > >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > > > >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > > > >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > > > >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > > > >> > > > >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > > > >> handy. > > > >> > > > >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > > > >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > > > >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > > > >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > > > >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > > > >> > > > >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > > > >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > > > >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > > > >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > > > >> > > > >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > > > > > > > Bodkin, > > > > > > > > Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after > > > > he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. > > > > > > 1. Galileo was widely read. > > > > > > 2. Galileo performed real experiments and made quantitative experiments. > > > > > > 3. Where he discovered things were wrong, it was because of those > > > experimental observations, not because of “logical thinking”. > > > > > > 4. Galileo did not descend into self-amused babbling due to excessive > > > drinking. > > > > You forgot number 5...didn't he invented the Cuckoo Clock??? > > > > Cuckoo > > Cuckoo > > Cuckoo > Then Albert Einstein used some sort of Cuckoo Clock (not a wristwatch > clock) at the patent office > to figure out trains schedules. > > and Voila, relativity war born. > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. 1) After the last world conference to adopt a reference for time zero (Greenwhich, Paris) around 1890 (and Poincaré participated), the amount of patents for using electrical or optical signals to sync clocks along railways exploded. In the first years of 1900, the Patent Office at Bern received more than 500 patents requests. How many did fall in the hands of ALBERT? 2) In 1891, France adopted Paris Mean Time as its standard national time. Poincaré insisted that France adopted the same standard than the rest of countries, using either method, and that should be spread to every town since the nearest station. France was reluctant to adopt the GMT standard until 1911, when Paris Mean Time was altered by 9 minutes 21 seconds to synchronise with Greenwich Mean Time. It was still called Paris Mean Time, which avoided having to use the word “Greenwich”. For 9 minutes 21 seconds all clocks in France had to stop, so France LOST that amount of time. Einstein laughed all the way to the bank. He fucked Lorentz, he fucked Poincaré, he fucked every possible retarded that bought his SHIT. He was a protegee from the CABAL. And, even dead, the retarded still keep fucking the mind of the followers of THE RELIGION OF RELATIVITY. NWO cabalistic tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 17:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Crank Richard Hertz complains that he's been assfucked |
| Message-ID | <85224de1-be4d-4ffe-a265-89dd99c02e08n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579583 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz mouth-frothed: > And, even dead, the retarded Richard Hertz still keeps losing his mind over basic science and still keeps frothing at the mouth Nurse, Dick has shit his pants and needs having his pampers changed. He's also frothing at the mouth and choking on his bile. Again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ober Corn <nm@cvslm.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 22:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz complains that he's been assfucked |
| Message-ID | <t03cru$13ee$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579584 |
Dono. wrote: > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz > mouth-frothed: > >> And, even dead, the retarded Richard Hertz still keeps losing his mind >> over basic science and still keeps frothing at the mouth > > Nurse, > > Dick has shit his pants and needs having his pampers changed. He's also > frothing at the mouth and choking on his bile. Again. Ukraine On Fire - Oliver Stone - 2016 https://rumble.com/vw7ykf-ukraine-on-fire-oliver-stone-2016.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 16:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t03817$1gfc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579583 |
On 3/5/2022 7:49 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >>>>>> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >>>>>> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >>>>>> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >>>>>> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >>>>>> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >>>>>> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >>>>>> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >>>>>> a chemist. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >>>>>> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >>>>>> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >>>>>> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >>>>>> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >>>>>> handy. >>>>>> >>>>>> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >>>>>> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >>>>>> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >>>>>> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >>>>>> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >>>>>> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >>>>>> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >>>>>> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. >>>>> >>>>> Bodkin, >>>>> >>>>> Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after >>>>> he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. >>>> >>>> 1. Galileo was widely read. >>>> >>>> 2. Galileo performed real experiments and made quantitative experiments. >>>> >>>> 3. Where he discovered things were wrong, it was because of those >>>> experimental observations, not because of “logical thinking”. >>>> >>>> 4. Galileo did not descend into self-amused babbling due to excessive >>>> drinking. >>> >>> You forgot number 5...didn't he invented the Cuckoo Clock??? >>> >>> Cuckoo >>> Cuckoo >>> Cuckoo >> Then Albert Einstein used some sort of Cuckoo Clock (not a wristwatch >> clock) at the patent office >> to figure out trains schedules. >> >> and Voila, relativity war born. >> -- >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, >> and challenge >> the unchallengeable. > > 1) After the last world conference to adopt a reference for time zero (Greenwhich, Paris) around 1890 (and Poincaré participated), > the amount of patents for using electrical or optical signals to sync clocks along railways exploded. In the first years of 1900, the > Patent Office at Bern received more than 500 patents requests. How many did fall in the hands of ALBERT? > > 2) In 1891, France adopted Paris Mean Time as its standard national time. > Poincaré insisted that France adopted the same standard than the rest of countries, using either method, and that should be > spread to every town since the nearest station. > France was reluctant to adopt the GMT standard until 1911, when Paris Mean Time was altered by 9 minutes 21 seconds to synchronise > with Greenwich Mean Time. It was still called Paris Mean Time, which avoided having to use the word “Greenwich”. > > For 9 minutes 21 seconds all clocks in France had to stop, so France LOST that amount of time. Einstein laughed all the way to the bank. How would that have benefited Einstein in any way? > > He fucked Lorentz, he fucked Poincaré, he fucked every possible retarded that bought his SHIT. He was a protegee from the CABAL. There goes your paranoid delusions again. > > And, even dead, the retarded still keep fucking the mind of the followers of THE RELIGION OF RELATIVITY. NWO cabalistic tool. More delusions. Science theory=religion (or cult), and some made-up "cabal". >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 21:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1c9490e-b01c-4aa7-b2cb-41e75913c43bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579460 |
On Friday, 4 March 2022 at 22:09:55 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > >> > >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > >> a chemist. > >> > >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > >> > >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > >> handy. > >> > >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > >> > >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > >> > >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > > > Bodkin, > > > > Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after > > he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. > 1. Galileo was widely read. > > 2. Galileo performed real experiments and made quantitative experiments. For instance, he asked a real sailor what he is observing from a boat, and the answer he received was "I see my boat immobile and the shore moving".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 11:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <432d1ea8-5abb-42c3-8b28-8b059faa5067n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579421 |
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > > If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > a chemist. > > On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > interested enough in the subject to learn it. > > It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > handy. > > And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > > It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > > If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Bodkin, You claim that physics is best learnt from books. I'm interested to find out what other areas of knowledge you believe are also best learned from books.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svtvku$iaj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579443 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >> >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >> a chemist. >> >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >> >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >> handy. >> >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >> >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >> >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > Bodkin, > > You claim that physics is best learnt from books. I'm interested to find > out what other areas of knowledge you believe are also best learned from books. > Any field where college courseware is required for certification, for starters. Law, medicine, engineering, architecture, pharmaceutical chemistry, mathematics, economics policy, clinical psychology. There are lots of occupations which do not require textbooks but require long periods of direct apprenticeship under more experienced people: diesel mechanics, crane operators, chefs, electricians, plumbers, cabinetmakers, luthiers, orchestral musicians, professional basketball players. If you’re wondering about areas of knowledge that don’t require extensive training, there’s fruit-picking, ditch-digging, coal mining, nightwatching, candlemaking, assembly-line work, restaurant waitstaffing, retail store sales, and politics. One of those is surely up your alley. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web