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 | 2022-06-21 21:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 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 kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-27 08:02 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 13:09 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-28 16:32 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 21:46 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 09:34 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 17:52 +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 Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-26 16:53 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 21:30 -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
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 21:43 -0700
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-18 21:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62355C59.CF3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #580555 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > See high > school physics. you seem to come from a world where physics was taught in high school... or that everyone in high school was taught...physics. Did you got to a high skool known for...physics???? -- 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 | 2022-03-18 22:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6937c2e-f040-47b0-839b-c7d2a56f88d2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580567 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 1:29:49 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> > See high
> > school physics.
>
> you seem to come from a world where physics was taught in high school...
>
> or that everyone in high school was taught...physics.
>
> Did you got to a high skool known for...physics????
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.
https://www.time4learning.com/homeschool-curriculum/high-school-physics.html
Learning Objectives for High School Physics
At the end of a high school physics course, students should have a strong grasp on concepts of mass, force, motion, energy and more. Additionally, students should have the sufficient knowledge needed for higher level education.
Below are some examples of potential high school physics goals and objectives for your child:
Use graphs and equations to solve speed and velocity problems.
Describe Newton’s first, second, and third laws of motion.
Solve problems using Kepler’s laws.
Calculate kinetic energy, mass, or velocity given the other two quantities.
Explain how electromagnetic waves transfer energy by radiation.
Distinguish between absorption, transmission, reflection, refraction, and diffraction.
Analyze how light waves bend around objects.
Use Ohm’s law to calculate voltage, current, or resistance.
Apply the right-hand rule to determine the direction of the magnetic force on a charge.
Use the half-life concept to describe the rate of decay of an isotope.
***THIS --> **** Identify Einstein’s two postulates of special relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62377710.2442@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #580570 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 1:29:49 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > See high > > > school physics. > > > > you seem to come from a world where physics was taught in high school... > > > > or that everyone in high school was taught...physics. > > > > Did you got to a high skool known for...physics???? > > > > > > -- > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > and challenge > > the unchallengeable. > > https://www.time4learning.com/homeschool-curriculum/high-school-physics.html > > Learning Objectives for High School Physics > > At the end of a high school physics course, students should have a strong grasp on concepts of mass, force, motion, energy and more. Additionally, students should have the sufficient knowledge needed for higher level education. > > Below are some examples of potential high school physics goals and objectives for your child: > > Use graphs and equations to solve speed and velocity problems. > Describe Newton’s first, second, and third laws of motion. > Solve problems using Kepler’s laws. > Calculate kinetic energy, mass, or velocity given the other two quantities. > Explain how electromagnetic waves transfer energy by radiation. > Distinguish between absorption, transmission, reflection, refraction, and diffraction. > Analyze how light waves bend around objects. > Use Ohm’s law to calculate voltage, current, or resistance. > Apply the right-hand rule to determine the direction of the magnetic force on a charge. > Use the half-life concept to describe the rate of decay of an isotope. > > ***THIS --> **** Identify Einstein’s two postulates of special relativity. i'm talking about the real world... 13 Baltimore City High Schools, zero students proficient in math https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/13-baltimore-city-high-schools-zero-students-proficient-in-math Across the country, 65% of students didn’t meet national proficiency standards in 2019. How can 84% of Chicago Public Schools students graduate when only 26% of 11th graders are proficient in reading, math? https://wirepoints.org/how-can-84-of-chicago-public-schools-students-graduate-when-only-26-of-11th-graders-are-proficient-in-reading-math-wirepoints-quickpoint/ High school physics is for retards, everybody knows that! You know, those 2 or 3 kids that sit in the front of the class...they are called retards. Why don't you simply take those 2 or 3 kids in class and put them in a concentration physics camps? I'll sell drugs to the rest of the kids... -- 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 | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e74095b-4f88-4f26-9c8b-aaa766e94187n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580641 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 1:29:49 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > See high > > > > school physics. > > > > > > you seem to come from a world where physics was taught in high school... > > > > > > or that everyone in high school was taught...physics. > > > > > > Did you got to a high skool known for...physics???? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > and challenge > > > the unchallengeable. > > > > https://www.time4learning.com/homeschool-curriculum/high-school-physics.html > > > > Learning Objectives for High School Physics > > > > At the end of a high school physics course, students should have a strong grasp on concepts of mass, force, motion, energy and more. Additionally, students should have the sufficient knowledge needed for higher level education. > > > > Below are some examples of potential high school physics goals and objectives for your child: > > > > Use graphs and equations to solve speed and velocity problems. > > Describe Newton’s first, second, and third laws of motion. > > Solve problems using Kepler’s laws. > > Calculate kinetic energy, mass, or velocity given the other two quantities. > > Explain how electromagnetic waves transfer energy by radiation. > > Distinguish between absorption, transmission, reflection, refraction, and diffraction. > > Analyze how light waves bend around objects. > > Use Ohm’s law to calculate voltage, current, or resistance. > > Apply the right-hand rule to determine the direction of the magnetic force on a charge. > > Use the half-life concept to describe the rate of decay of an isotope. > > > > ***THIS --> **** Identify Einstein’s two postulates of special relativity. > i'm talking about the real world... > > 13 Baltimore City High Schools, zero students proficient in math > https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/13-baltimore-city-high-schools-zero-students-proficient-in-math > > Across the country, 65% of students didn’t meet national proficiency standards in 2019. > > How can 84% of Chicago Public Schools students graduate when only 26% of 11th graders are proficient in reading, math? > https://wirepoints.org/how-can-84-of-chicago-public-schools-students-graduate-when-only-26-of-11th-graders-are-proficient-in-reading-math-wirepoints-quickpoint/ > > > > High school physics is for retards, everybody knows that! > > You know, those 2 or 3 kids that sit in the front of the class...they are called retards. > > Why don't you simply take those 2 or 3 kids in class and put them in a concentration physics camps? > > I'll sell drugs to the rest of the kids... > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. Because schools are paid to graduate people? Yeah, I think we all know that, that due to widespread pollution of xenohormones, and other watershed drugs, and, screen time of the idiot sort, and, lowered expectations, that, much is involved in rehabilitating a few generations. Yet, it's still so that in general spare terms that critical analysis can be easily cultivated over time, for concepts. Still, though it's sad sometimes how many crutches people are hobbling around in their baggage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-14 12:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t0nrbq$q55$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580254 |
On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. >>>> No, every high school physics book states that. >>> >>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single attractive force can >>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. >> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every >> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is >> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, >> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except >> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. > > Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single > attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your assertions. You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since you exhibit all the signs of a crank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a8136bd-b6de-4be1-a357-0e53f19e4206n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580271 |
On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. > >>>> No, every high school physics book states that. > >>> > >>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single attractive force can > >>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. > >> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every > >> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is > >> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, > >> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except > >> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. > > > > Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single > > attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. > Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those > physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. > And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your > assertions. > Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles. > > You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since > you exhibit all the signs of a crank. make
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t0q5c1$npr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580325 |
Ken Seto wrote: > ... Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles. Well, Ken you didn't even try to solve the differential equation you end up with when applying F=ma and F=GmM/r^2, did you? I wonder if you would claim also that a uniform gravitational field (for instance considering a stone thrown up at close vicinity to Earth's surface) cannot account for a parabolic trajectory. Would you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 07:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45e0bd11-1392-48d9-97cd-6664d8e2eb16n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580326 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 9:46:44 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > ... Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an > object go around in circles. > Well, Ken you didn't even try to solve the differential equation you > end up with when applying F=ma and F=GmM/r^2, did you? > > I wonder if you would claim also that a uniform gravitational field > (for instance considering a stone thrown up at close vicinity to Earth's > surface) cannot account for a parabolic trajectory. Would you? You have no clue why there exists an attractive force between the stone and the earth. Because the earth and the stone are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands. This attractive force is in competition with the force you applied to the stone and causing it to move upward. The end result is that the stone follow a parabolic path.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 15:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t0q8a3$93c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580328 |
Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 9:46:44 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>> ... Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an
>> object go around in circles.
>> Well, Ken you didn't even try to solve the differential equation you
>> end up with when applying F=ma and F=GmM/r^2, did you?
>>
>> I wonder if you would claim also that a uniform gravitational field
>> (for instance considering a stone thrown up at close vicinity to Earth's
>> surface) cannot account for a parabolic trajectory. Would you?
>
> You have no clue why there exists an attractive force between the stone and the earth.
> Because the earth and the stone are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> This attractive force is in competition with the force you applied to the stone and causing it
> to move upward. The end result is that the stone follow a parabolic path.
This is idiotic, Ken. After you've thrown the stone there is only one
force acting on it: the gravitational force. You can solve the
differential equation coming from F=ma and F=-mg\vect{u} (u being
the vertical unit vector) to end up with a parabolic trajectory...
So, yep, you do have the same HUGE misconception in this simple case
as well in the case of orbits.
This is high school physics, you fail at it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b572c431-4c76-4917-9f92-5ac4a7fbaba8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580329 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:36:54 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 9:46:44 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> ... Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an
> >> object go around in circles.
> >> Well, Ken you didn't even try to solve the differential equation you
> >> end up with when applying F=ma and F=GmM/r^2, did you?
> >>
> >> I wonder if you would claim also that a uniform gravitational field
> >> (for instance considering a stone thrown up at close vicinity to Earth's
> >> surface) cannot account for a parabolic trajectory. Would you?
> >
> > You have no clue why there exists an attractive force between the stone and the earth.
> > Because the earth and the stone are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> > This attractive force is in competition with the force you applied to the stone and causing it
> > to move upward. The end result is that the stone follow a parabolic path.
> This is idiotic, Ken. After you've thrown the stone there is only one
> force acting on it: the gravitational force.
>
What yu said is idiotic. After you threw the stone it will continue to move in a straight
line. The force between the earth and the stone will cause it to come down to earth. Clearly
there exist more than one force:
1. the force you applied to the stone causing it to move upward.
2. the attractive force between the earth and the stone because they are expanding
in the same direction as the universe expands.
>
>You can solve
> differential equation coming from F=ma and F=-mg\vect{u} (u being
> the vertical unit vector) to end up with a parabolic trajectory...
>
> So, yeniverse expandsp, you do have the same HUGE misconception in this simple case
> as well in the case of orbits.
>
> This is high stone.h school physics, you fail at it.
in a straight
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 16:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t0qamf$1gts$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580330 |
Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:36:54 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 9:46:44 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> ... Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an
>>>> object go around in circles.
>>>> Well, Ken you didn't even try to solve the differential equation you
>>>> end up with when applying F=ma and F=GmM/r^2, did you?
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if you would claim also that a uniform gravitational field
>>>> (for instance considering a stone thrown up at close vicinity to Earth's
>>>> surface) cannot account for a parabolic trajectory. Would you?
>>>
>>> You have no clue why there exists an attractive force between the stone and the earth.
>>> Because the earth and the stone are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
>>> This attractive force is in competition with the force you applied to the stone and causing it
>>> to move upward. The end result is that the stone follow a parabolic path.
>> This is idiotic, Ken. After you've thrown the stone there is only one
>> force acting on it: the gravitational force.
>>
> What yu said is idiotic. After you threw the stone it will continue to move in a straight
> line. The force between the earth and the stone will cause it to come down to earth.
Well, eventually the stone will hit the ground, so it is coming down to
Earth.
> Clearly
> there exist more than one force:
> 1. the force you applied to the stone causing it to move upward.
> 2. the attractive force between the earth and the stone because they are expanding
> in the same direction as the universe expands.
Ken, this is 100% bs... It vaguely recall the pre-newtonian model
in some way that has been proven to be wrong anyway.
There is NO other force than the gravitational force during the
stone motion.
>> You can solve
>> differential equation coming from F=ma and F=-mg\vect{u} (u being
>> the vertical unit vector) to end up with a parabolic trajectory...
Why wouldn't you try to actually compute the trajectory?
>> So, yeniverse expandsp, you do have the same HUGE misconception in this simple case
>> as well in the case of orbits.
>>
>> This is high stone.h school physics, you fail at it.
> in a straight
Why did you garble my post? "stone.h ... in a straight"? Are you drunk?
Anyway, can you express quantitatively the trajectory of the stone in
the following situation (neglecting air resistance)?
- at time t=0 the stone is at position (0,0) in Earth surface frame
- the velocity of the stone at t=0 is (a*cos theta, a*sin theta)
Newtonian Dynamics CAN provide the equation of motion of the stone,
i.e. at any time (x(t), y(t)) coordinate of position in space.
Can you do it using your own theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <364e78bd-03e5-4f94-86ab-0288eab451ben@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580331 |
On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 16:17:40 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:36:54 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 9:46:44 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> ... Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an
> >>>> object go around in circles.
> >>>> Well, Ken you didn't even try to solve the differential equation you
> >>>> end up with when applying F=ma and F=GmM/r^2, did you?
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder if you would claim also that a uniform gravitational field
> >>>> (for instance considering a stone thrown up at close vicinity to Earth's
> >>>> surface) cannot account for a parabolic trajectory. Would you?
> >>>
> >>> You have no clue why there exists an attractive force between the stone and the earth.
> >>> Because the earth and the stone are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> >>> This attractive force is in competition with the force you applied to the stone and causing it
> >>> to move upward. The end result is that the stone follow a parabolic path.
> >> This is idiotic, Ken. After you've thrown the stone there is only one
> >> force acting on it: the gravitational force.
> >>
> > What yu said is idiotic. After you threw the stone it will continue to move in a straight
> > line. The force between the earth and the stone will cause it to come down to earth.
> Well, eventually the stone will hit the ground, so it is coming down to
> Earth.
> > Clearly
> > there exist more than one force:
> > 1. the force you applied to the stone causing it to move upward.
> > 2. the attractive force between the earth and the stone because they are expanding
> > in the same direction as the universe expands.
> Ken, this is 100% bs... It vaguely recall the pre-newtonian model
> in some way that has been proven to be wrong anyway.
>
> There is NO other force than the gravitational force during the
> stone motion.
> >> You can solve
> >> differential equation coming from F=ma and F=-mg\vect{u} (u being
> >> the vertical unit vector) to end up with a parabolic trajectory...
> Why wouldn't you try to actually compute the trajectory?
> >> So, yeniverse expandsp, you do have the same HUGE misconception in this simple case
> >> as well in the case of orbits.
> >>
> >> This is high stone.h school physics, you fail at it.
> > in a straight
> Why did you garble my post? "stone.h ... in a straight"? Are you drunk?
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend a wise one.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 12:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t0qgf8$n4o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580325 |
On 3/15/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >> >>>>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. >>>>>> No, every high school physics book states that. >>>>> >>>>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single attractive force can >>>>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. >>>> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every >>>> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is >>>> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, >>>> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except >>>> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. >>> >>> Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single >>> attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. >> Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those >> physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. >> And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your >> assertions. >> > Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles. And as I said, everyone in the entire world is wrong and only you are right, but all you have is an assertion (with no evidence) that a single force cannot work. Everyone is wrong except yourself. Classic sign of a crackpot as I said many times. >> >> You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since >> you exhibit all the signs of a crank. > make Make what? Should I start heating up the branding iron now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-18 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8facd0f-4b88-4790-8c85-1ae17130d51an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580342 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 12:56:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 3/15/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. > >>>>>> No, every high school physics book states that. > >>>>> > >>>>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single attractive force can > >>>>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. > >>>> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every > >>>> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is > >>>> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, > >>>> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except > >>>> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. > >>> > >>> Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single > >>> attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. > >> Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those > >> physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. > >> And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your > >> assertions. > >> > > Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles. > And as I said, everyone in the entire world is wrong and only you are > right, but all you have is an assertion (with no evidence) that a single > force cannot work. > a bunch go idiots around here claim that. > Everyone is wrong except yourself. Classic sign of a crackpot as I said > many times. Moron, only you and a bunch of idiots around here claim that. One force cannot make an object go around in circles. > > >> You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since > >> you exhibit all the signs of a crank. > > make that. > Make what? > > Should I start heating up the branding iron now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-18 13:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t12gvp$m6b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580546 |
On 3/18/2022 10:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 12:56:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 3/15/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. >>>>>>>> No, every high school physics book states that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single attractive force can >>>>>>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. >>>>>> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every >>>>>> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is >>>>>> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, >>>>>> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except >>>>>> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. >>>>> >>>>> Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single >>>>> attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. >>>> Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those >>>> physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. >>>> And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your >>>> assertions. >>>> >>> Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles. >> And as I said, everyone in the entire world is wrong and only you are >> right, but all you have is an assertion (with no evidence) that a single >> force cannot work. >> a bunch go idiots around here claim that. >> Everyone is wrong except yourself. Classic sign of a crackpot as I said >> many times. > > Moron, only you and a bunch of idiots around here claim that. You stated all high school physics books are wrong (without having read them) because they use Newton's Proof. You claim that you and only you have the correct physics with two forces. Thus, everyone is wrong except for yourself. A classic crackpot sign, if there ever was one. > One force cannot make an object go around in circles. And there you go again, with a claim everyone else disagrees with, and goes counter to your statement "only [myself] and a bunch of idiots here" claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-18 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t12hem$t9n$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580546 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 12:56:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 3/15/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. >>>>>>>> No, every high school physics book states that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single attractive force can >>>>>>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. >>>>>> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every >>>>>> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is >>>>>> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, >>>>>> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except >>>>>> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. >>>>> >>>>> Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single >>>>> attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. >>>> Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those >>>> physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. >>>> And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your >>>> assertions. >>>> >>> Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make >>> an object go around in circles. >> And as I said, everyone in the entire world is wrong and only you are >> right, but all you have is an assertion (with no evidence) that a single >> force cannot work. >> a bunch go idiots around here claim that. >> Everyone is wrong except yourself. Classic sign of a crackpot as I said >> many times. > > Moron, only you and a bunch of idiots around here claim that. You claim every single physics text book on the planet is wrong. > One force cannot make an object go around in circles. >> >>>> You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since >>>> you exhibit all the signs of a crank. >>> make that. >> Make what? >> >> Should I start heating up the branding iron now? > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 04:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f69633a4-cf93-4fea-bb6f-6200871cea64n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580556 |
On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 12:56:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 3/15/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. > >>>>>>>> No, every high school physics book states that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single attractive force can > >>>>>>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. > >>>>>> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every > >>>>>> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is > >>>>>> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, > >>>>>> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except > >>>>>> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. > >>>>> > >>>>> Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single > >>>>> attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. > >>>> Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those > >>>> physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. > >>>> And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your > >>>> assertions. > >>>> > >>> Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make > >>> an object go around in circles. > >> And as I said, everyone in the entire world is wrong and only you are > >> right, but all you have is an assertion (with no evidence) that a single > >> force cannot work. > >> a bunch go idiots around here claim that. > >> Everyone is wrong except yourself. Classic sign of a crackpot as I said > >> many times. > > > > Moron, only you and a bunch of idiots around here claim that.ity is a single > You claim every single physics text book on the planet is wrong. Yes, if th ey claim that gravity is a single attractive force and at the same time claiming that gravity can cause the moon to orbit the earth for billions of years. Learn some new physics)hysics (Ken's physics).....gravity is a composite force. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > One force cannot make an object go around in circles. > >> > >>>> You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since > >>>> you exhibit all the signs of a crank. > >>> make that. > >> Make what? > >> > >> Should I start heating up the branding iron now? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 12:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t175k7$180b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580619 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 12:56:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 3/15/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. >>>>>>>>>> No, every high school physics book states that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single >>>>>>>>> attractive force can >>>>>>>>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. >>>>>>>> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every >>>>>>>> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is >>>>>>>> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, >>>>>>>> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except >>>>>>>> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single >>>>>>> attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. >>>>>> Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those >>>>>> physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. >>>>>> And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your >>>>>> assertions. >>>>>> >>>>> Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make >>>>> an object go around in circles. >>>> And as I said, everyone in the entire world is wrong and only you are >>>> right, but all you have is an assertion (with no evidence) that a single >>>> force cannot work. >>>> a bunch go idiots around here claim that. >>>> Everyone is wrong except yourself. Classic sign of a crackpot as I said >>>> many times. >>> >>> Moron, only you and a bunch of idiots around here claim that.ity is a single >> You claim every single physics text book on the planet is wrong. > > Yes, Yeah and that makes you a fruitcake. > if th ey claim that gravity is a single attractive force and at the same > time claiming that > gravity can cause the moon to orbit the earth for billions of years. > Learn some new physics)hysics (Ken's physics).....gravity is a composite force. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > >>> One force cannot make an object go around in circles. >>>> >>>>>> You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since >>>>>> you exhibit all the signs of a crank. >>>>> make that. >>>> Make what? >>>> >>>> Should I start heating up the branding iron now? >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ff93d23-377d-439f-95b4-2ba61da30d2bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580620 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 8:10:52 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 12:56:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> On 3/15/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. > >>>>>>>>>> No, every high school physics book states that. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single > >>>>>>>>> attractive force can > >>>>>>>>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. > >>>>>>>> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every > >>>>>>>> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is > >>>>>>>> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, > >>>>>>>> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except > >>>>>>>> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single > >>>>>>> attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. > >>>>>> Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those > >>>>>> physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. > >>>>>> And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your > >>>>>> assertions. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make > >>>>> an object go around in circles. > >>>> And as I said, everyone in the entire world is wrong and only you are > >>>> right, but all you have is an assertion (with no evidence) that a single > >>>> force cannot work. > >>>> a bunch go idiots around here claim that. > >>>> Everyone is wrong except yourself. Classic sign of a crackpot as I said > >>>> many times. > >>> > >>> Moron, only you and a bunch of idiots around here claim that.ity is a single > >> You claim every single physics text book on the planet is wrong. > > > > Yes, > Yeah and that makes you a fruitcake. No, that makes you to be an unlearned and indoctrinated Einsteinian. > > > if th ey claim that gravity is a single attractive force and at the same > > time claiming that make > > gravity can cause the moon to orbit the earth for billions of years. > > Learn some new physics)hysics (Ken's physics).....gravity is a composite force. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > >>> One force cannot make an object go around in circles. > >>>> > >>>>>> You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since > >>>>>> you exhibit all the signs of a crank. > >>>>> make that. > >>>> Make what? > >>>> > >>>> Should I start heating up the branding iron now? > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 05:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82036a3a-25a0-48e3-86f7-6d9adffb4c94n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580622 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 8:26:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 8:10:52 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: > > > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: > > >>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 12:56:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >>>> On 3/15/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >>>>>> On 3/14/2022 9:42 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 8:22:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On 3/13/2022 5:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2022 10:02 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Only the woodworker can make impossible to possible. > > >>>>>>>>>> No, every high school physics book states that. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> So all the big school books are wrong by assuming that a single > > >>>>>>>>> attractive force can > > >>>>>>>>> make an object go around in circles. It can’t. > > >>>>>>>> So every single high school physics book in the world is wrong. Every > > >>>>>>>> physics book author and take ny teacher or professor who uses such a book is > > >>>>>>>> wrong. Everyone in the world, except yourself, is wrong. Is that right, > > >>>>>>>> Stupid Ken? Because thinking that any poepleveryone in the world is wrong except > > >>>>>>>> for yourself is a clear sign of a crank. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Stupid Mike, no matter how many people people make the stupid claim that a single > > >>>>>>> attractive force can make object go around in circles.......it can’t. > > >>>>>> Everyone in the whole world is wrong except for yourself. All those > > >>>>>> physics books are wrong even though you've never even looked at them. > > >>>>>> And you know you are right even though you have no evidence, just your > > >>>>>> assertions. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Moron, Everyone is wrong because a single attractive force cannot make > > >>>>> an object go around in circles. > > >>>> And as I said, everyone in the entire world is wrong and only you are > > >>>> right, but all you have is an assertion (with no evidence) that a single > > >>>> force cannot work. > > >>>> a bunch go idiots around here claim that. > > >>>> Everyone is wrong except yourself. Classic sign of a crackpot as I said > > >>>> many times. > > >>> > > >>> Moron, only you and a bunch of idiots around here claim that.ity is a single > > >> You claim every single physics text book on the planet is wrong. > > > > > > Yes, > > Yeah and that makes you a fruitcake. > No, that makes you to be an unlearned and indoctrinated Einsteinian. > > > > > if th ey claim that gravity is a single attractive force and at the same > > > time claiming that make > > > gravity can cause the moon to orbit the earth for billions of years. > > > Learn some new physics)hysics (Ken's physics).....gravity is a composite force. > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > > > >>> One force cannot make an object go around in circles. > > >>>> > > >>>>>> You may as well have the word "Crank" branded across your forehead since > > >>>>>> you exhibit all the signs of a crank. > > >>>>> make that. > > >>>> Make what? > > >>>> > > >>>> Should I start heating up the branding iron now? > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web