Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597999 > unrolled thread
| Started by | carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-21 14:19 -0800 |
| Last post | 2023-01-13 16:12 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 14:19 -0800
Re: climate change Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 22:45 +0000
Re: climate change Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 22:54 +0000
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 09:49 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 10:07 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 11:08 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-22 12:59 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 13:05 -0800
Re: climate change Rico Amato <toaa@araocco.rt> - 2022-12-22 22:04 +0000
Re: climate change Rico Amato <toaa@araocco.rt> - 2022-12-22 22:14 +0000
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-22 14:26 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 18:38 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-22 19:03 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-23 11:10 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 13:48 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-23 15:30 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 20:25 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-27 12:12 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-27 15:41 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-27 16:40 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-27 21:10 -0600
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-28 12:24 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-31 09:33 +0100
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 00:44 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-01 10:00 +0100
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-28 07:56 +0100
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:01 +0100
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 16:38 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 16:40 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-29 18:54 -0600
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 11:14 +0100
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-30 10:57 -0600
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 10:48 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 11:01 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 11:15 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 11:57 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 13:03 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 14:40 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 15:25 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-30 19:02 -0600
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-30 18:58 -0600
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-31 09:09 +0100
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-31 09:22 +0100
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-31 15:42 -0600
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 14:26 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 14:43 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 15:42 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-01 09:43 +0100
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-01 16:49 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-01 09:28 +0100
Re: climate change Doodnath Sarti <ttha@dnhnahan.nh> - 2023-01-01 08:49 +0000
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-01 06:21 -0600
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 15:56 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 16:02 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 16:19 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 17:10 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 17:56 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-02 03:36 -0500
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 07:36 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 12:24 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 12:27 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 13:30 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 13:46 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 13:48 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 17:14 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 17:29 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 18:13 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-04 10:12 +0100
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-04 12:59 -0500
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-05 07:40 +0100
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-04 11:17 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 11:49 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 14:40 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-05 14:40 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-04 12:51 -0500
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-04 23:06 -0600
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-05 00:13 -0600
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-05 08:01 +0100
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-05 11:47 -0600
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 10:17 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-05 16:33 -0600
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-07 09:42 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-07 15:21 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-07 15:47 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-07 15:58 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-07 16:04 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-07 18:31 -0800
Re: climate change Luigi Tumicelli <llei@cumiicli.lu> - 2023-01-08 13:47 +0000
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-08 15:16 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-08 16:49 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-08 17:09 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-09 08:53 +0100
Re: climate change Luigi Tumicelli <llei@cumiicli.lu> - 2023-01-09 08:30 +0000
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 10:11 -0800
Re: climate change Luigi Tumicelli <llei@cumiicli.lu> - 2023-01-09 18:58 +0000
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 12:47 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-09 22:18 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-10 15:49 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 10:58 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-10 21:45 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 12:58 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-10 22:12 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 14:26 -0800
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 21:56 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-10 22:17 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-10 22:32 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-11 01:34 -0500
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 22:49 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-11 12:44 -0500
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 10:53 -0800
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 11:54 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 12:03 -0800
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 12:39 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 14:21 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-11 22:06 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 14:20 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 14:23 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-12 10:23 +0100
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-12 03:46 -0500
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 00:58 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 16:53 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 17:07 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 15:02 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 15:09 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-12 17:57 -0600
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 16:26 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-12 18:32 -0600
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 17:23 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 17:31 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 18:06 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 18:12 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 19:20 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-13 11:39 -0500
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-12 20:44 -0600
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 18:52 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-13 04:06 -0500
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 01:20 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-13 12:04 -0500
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 10:20 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 12:11 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 12:23 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 12:27 -0800
Re: climate change Kobie Locatelli <be@cliietik.oo> - 2023-01-15 11:38 +0000
Re: climate change Kobie Locatelli <be@cliietik.oo> - 2023-01-15 13:23 +0000
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-15 13:14 -0600
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-15 13:10 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-15 13:14 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-15 14:48 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-15 16:44 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-16 17:44 +0100
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-16 12:36 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-16 13:31 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-16 13:39 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-16 14:19 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-17 00:55 -0500
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-16 22:24 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-17 09:58 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-17 13:16 -0500
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-17 10:58 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-18 16:55 -0500
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 12:07 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 12:11 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 12:18 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-19 15:18 -0600
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 13:51 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 13:52 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-19 18:47 -0600
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-20 10:23 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-20 14:47 -0500
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-20 21:36 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-20 14:14 -0600
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-20 12:22 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-20 19:40 -0600
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-21 01:54 -0500
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-21 20:35 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-21 15:26 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-21 21:46 -0600
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-22 12:08 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:37 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:39 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:39 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-23 23:10 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:45 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:50 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:52 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-23 17:24 -0500
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 14:35 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 14:37 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-24 08:48 +0100
Re: climate change Faustino Biondo <uinn@bfotboia.nt> - 2023-01-25 19:40 +0000
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 16:40 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-27 08:17 +0100
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-27 14:31 -0500
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-28 14:08 +0100
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-30 07:35 +0100
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-30 07:38 -0600
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-31 09:34 +0100
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-31 13:19 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 11:13 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-02-03 21:49 +0100
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 19:23 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-02-04 21:10 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 12:06 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 22:06 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-23 16:55 -0600
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 16:52 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 17:36 -0800
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 18:39 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-23 23:10 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-17 09:57 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-17 10:28 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-17 16:20 -0500
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-18 00:10 -0800
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-18 16:57 -0500
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 11:57 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-16 23:25 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-16 15:40 -0800
Re: climate change Edurardo De felice <eduu@eiudece.co> - 2023-01-17 13:49 +0000
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-11 10:36 +0100
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 02:09 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-11 10:36 +0100
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 02:06 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-11 11:29 +0100
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-11 13:00 -0500
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 10:44 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-11 11:17 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 10:51 -0800
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-11 14:36 -0600
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-12 08:09 +0100
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-12 03:55 -0500
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-13 08:11 +0100
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-13 13:12 +0100
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 04:41 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-13 16:11 +0100
Re: climate change Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 08:54 -0800
Re: climate change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-13 21:52 +0100
Re: climate change Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-13 11:21 -0500
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-14 09:54 +0100
Re: climate change Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2023-01-14 10:07 +0100
Re: climate change Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-14 12:03 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-14 12:24 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-14 12:26 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-15 08:11 +0100
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-10 07:18 +0100
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-02 08:06 +0100
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-02 10:22 -0600
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 07:27 +0100
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-02 10:43 -0600
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 14:54 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 14:57 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 15:03 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 15:10 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 17:29 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 16:20 -0800
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-01 20:24 -0600
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-01 19:27 -0600
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 18:02 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 18:20 -0800
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-01 20:48 -0600
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-01 21:29 -0600
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-02 08:28 +0100
Re: climate change Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-01 20:29 -0600
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-01 19:26 -0600
Re: climate change whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-01 06:16 -0600
Re: climate change "kellehe...@gmail.com" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 01:59 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-28 08:10 +0100
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 11:34 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 08:45 +0100
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 11:47 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 12:18 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-28 12:34 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 13:06 -0800
Re: climate change thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 15:29 -0800
Re: climate change Santos Anselmetti <ttln@niitstsm.sa> - 2022-12-28 23:33 +0000
Re: climate change Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-01-05 20:08 +1100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 16:17 -0800
Re: climate change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-06 08:11 +0100
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-06 11:29 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-06 11:30 -0800
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-06 13:21 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-06 14:20 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-06 14:09 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-06 14:29 -0800
Re: climate change George Hammond <ghammond928@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 23:45 -0800
Re: climate change Otto Fiscella <tfit@tiselelc.it> - 2023-01-13 16:06 +0000
Re: climate change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-13 12:03 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 12:08 -0800
Re: climate change Otto Fiscella <tfit@tiselelc.it> - 2023-01-13 21:10 +0000
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 16:12 -0800
Re: climate change carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 16:12 -0800
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-30 18:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k19fqrFjiouU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598650 |
On 12/30/2022 1:15 PM, thor stoneman wrote: > >> One reason to think so is, that you regard photons as real lasting >> entities like particles. > > So who was the "YOU"??? And is billions of light years not "long > lasting" in your lexicon? > >> But that would also 'materialise' energy, because photons are quanta of >> the em-radiation. >> >> But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance >> and not quantised into photons, which also do not behave like particles. > > > Raging confusion displayed here...https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/RZyx-BOEAFQ Whodat > > > ___________________________________________________ > > > Whodat, you make a good point but only one good point. It would be better to complete the answer to the second part. Also, could you tone down you responds. Personally, I am a sensitive person and do not need all this additional bile. I can understand a simple polite statement just a well. Thank you. Also, you do agree that sunshine produces heat which is the main point. When taking on the mantle of teaching others what you consider to be good manners it would be generally helpful if you were to learn and actually use the citation tools that are as old here as Usenet itself. I speak from experience because I was participating before "the great renaming." Also, where it comes to your attempts to teach me to tone down my replies let me suggest that you adjust your attitudes where it comes to participating in Usenet. Your assessment that "bile" is present in my posting displays as much raging confusion as the post to which I was responding. As has been held for decades in Usenet discussions, if the heat is too much for you it is best to get out of the kitchen. Please take note that I am one of the tamest posters in the sci newsgroups. Warmest regards and don't let the door slam you in the ass on your way out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-31 09:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1a91tFn85nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598649 |
Am 30.12.2022 um 20:01 schrieb thor stoneman: > > > "An expanding em field doesn't form a particle structure. An em wave does, when it gets "wrapped and trapped" in a double loop. See https://physicsdetective.com/how-pair-production-works/. I wrote it." https://physicsdiscussionforum.org/why-field-theory-is-wrong-t2403-s30.html > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > > Is an em wave composed of an electromagnetic field of Faraday's law and do em radio waves expand? Graduate students in physics have submitted PhD thesis's on how to bound a field, so do not feel bad. > em-radiation is not composed from particles called 'photons'. Photons are not tiny things, which in sum build em-waves. It is a little more complicated. In my view 'particle' and 'photon' denote different aspects of the same thing. The photon is wavelike and the particle (well...) 'particle-like'. But these are not different things, but certain states of a so called 'quantum field'. The em-radiation oscillates between these two states like waves on the ocean oscillate between valleys and wave crests. Both look different, but are made from the same water. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-31 09:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1a9prFncfgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598644 |
Am 30.12.2022 um 17:57 schrieb whodat: > On 12/30/2022 4:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 30.12.2022 um 01:54 schrieb whodat: >> >>>> The heating of the earth, caused by the sun, is produce by photons >>>> that are interacting with the air molecules or water molecules, and >>>> any object that the photons encounter. The air and water molecules >>>> that contact the sunlight (photons) are affected by the photons >>>> (energy) which results in the increases in the kinetic energy of the >>>> air and water molecules which causes heat. >> >> This explanation is most likely wrong. > > Whether it is right or wrong I did not write the above. Why did you > attribute it to me by editing? > > >> One reason to think so is, that you regard photons as real lasting >> entities like particles. > > So who was the "YOU"??? And is billions of light years not "long > lasting" in your lexicon? Your complain is about a very common habit in the UseNet. I have wrote a comment to something, which was not written by you, but by somebody else, who had written something, that you have quoted. Usually this is regarded as acceptable, because the news-reader provides enough information to connect a quote to the correct author. But here you complained, that I had answered to something, what you haven't written. Well, yes, the fact is true, but I still regard it as a legal behaviour, because I have not said, that you wrote, what I have quoted. >> But that would also 'materialise' energy, because photons are quanta >> of the em-radiation. >> >> But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance >> and not quantised into photons, which also do not behave like particles. > > > Raging confusion displayed here... No, it's a statement, to which you apperently do not agree. In that case it would be polite, if you would say, why you think, that my statement is wrong and in which aspect. > >>> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in space. > > This I wrote and stand by. Why did you edit out what I was answering? I can quote whatever I want to quote. Your statement is still present in the article, which you have written. But this article is mine and here I can decide, what I like to write about. ... > >> Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere. > > > Nitpicking. The CDC reports that only 144 out of 100000 die of cancer. > Does that make cancer unworthy of consideration? Do you have to > experience cancer to understand it? Or is it sufficient that those who > have experienced cancer have reported what that's like? This statement has no obvious connection to the fact, that we humans usually do not see sunshine in outer space. > Your real problem appears to be that we have lots of information about > how the earth is heated but we don't understand it well enough as yet. Tell this to the IPCC. >> A few humans have left the surface of planet Earth and actually know, >> how sunshine looks like, if seen from a spaceship in orbit. >> >> But that was certainly not a very common experience. > > Admit your error, you are human after all, no? And lets move on. > Ok, I admitt my error. (btw: which one?) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-31 15:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1bolrFu9b0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598703 |
On 12/31/2022 2:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 30.12.2022 um 17:57 schrieb whodat: >> On 12/30/2022 4:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 30.12.2022 um 01:54 schrieb whodat: >>> >>>>> The heating of the earth, caused by the sun, is produce by photons >>>>> that are interacting with the air molecules or water molecules, and >>>>> any object that the photons encounter. The air and water molecules >>>>> that contact the sunlight (photons) are affected by the photons >>>>> (energy) which results in the increases in the kinetic energy of the >>>>> air and water molecules which causes heat. >>> >>> This explanation is most likely wrong. >> >> Whether it is right or wrong I did not write the above. Why did you >> attribute it to me by editing? >> >> >>> One reason to think so is, that you regard photons as real lasting >>> entities like particles. >> >> So who was the "YOU"??? And is billions of light years not "long >> lasting" in your lexicon? > > Your complain is about a very common habit in the UseNet. > > I have wrote a comment to something, which was not written by you, but by somebody else, who had written something, that you have quoted. > > Usually this is regarded as acceptable, because the news-reader provides enough information to connect a quote to the correct author. > > But here you complained, that I had answered to something, what you haven't written. > > Well, yes, the fact is true, but I still regard it as a legal behaviour, because I have not said, that you wrote, what I have quoted. Obviously the standard form of Usenet attributions understood and correctly used by millions of people is too complicated for you. But then you are off in your own little universe anyway as is clear from many/most of your postings. >>> But that would also 'materialise' energy, because photons are quanta >>> of the em-radiation. >>> >>> But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance >>> and not quantised into photons, which also do not behave like particles. >> >> >> Raging confusion displayed here... > > No, it's a statement, to which you apperently do not agree. You think???? Am I allowed to draw any conclusions at all, or is that reserved for you alone? I conclude you exhibit raging confusion above. Several ways, in fact. I am not required to quantify further. > In that case it would be polite, if you would say, why you think, that my statement is wrong and in which aspect. If politeness actually worked I would be using it. Even clear insult in the reductio ad absurdum genre barely puts a dent into your misapprehensions. >>>> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in space. >> >> This I wrote and stand by. Why did you edit out what I was answering? > > I can quote whatever I want to quote. > Your statement is still present in the article, which you have written. > But this article is mine and here I can decide, what I like to write about. And as such I have every right to criticize it as I wish. I did that and here you are whining about it. >>> Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere. >> Nitpicking. The CDC reports that only 144 out of 100000 die of cancer. >> Does that make cancer unworthy of consideration? Do you have to >> experience cancer to understand it? Or is it sufficient that those who >> have experienced cancer have reported what that's like? > > > This statement has no obvious connection to the fact, that we humans usually do not see sunshine in outer space. Why didn't you say that instead of making the incorrect case that you did? This discussion would have taken a different tone had you been clear from the beginning. I hasten to add that you are still wrong. >> Your real problem appears to be that we have lots of information about >> how the earth is heated but we don't understand it well enough as yet. > Tell this to the IPCC. If this were a legal proceeding my correct response at this point would be, "argues facts not in evidence." Are we to guess precisely what that comment means because it sure isn't clear as stated. And you do this sort of thing all the time. I suspect that you don't know any better, and that makes you someone best not to enter into a discussion with. >>> A few humans have left the surface of planet Earth and actually know, >>> how sunshine looks like, if seen from a spaceship in orbit. >>> >>> But that was certainly not a very common experience. Much, if not most, of what humanity accepts regarding "scientific fact" has not been experienced by the majority of humans. Better said, those things are not a very common experience. Quite frankly what you've done here as you have in many of the arguments you present is you have moved the goalposts. It is high time you stood down long enough to study the formal fallacies and check your work to make sure you aren't violating them. A good starting point is: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy> Every year lightening kills about 1000 people. Does that have to be a common experience for the rest of us to understand and accept that? Of course not. Your fallacious arguments are for the sake of argument along, as I've stated before. In that you are merely a variation of "Starmaker" who does the same sort of thing with less class. >> Admit your error, you are human after all, no? And lets move on. >> > Ok, I admitt my error. > (btw: which one?) Having said that you shouldn't wonder why you cannot gather a consensus. But then I never thought that ordinary human behavior would be your goal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-31 14:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b78a803b-9bbc-4c4c-a019-78c511b0187bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598731 |
em-radiation is not composed from particles called 'photons'. Photons are not tiny things, which in sum build em-waves. It is a little more complicated. In my view 'particle' and 'photon' denote different aspects of the same thing. The photon is wavelike and the particle (well...) 'particle-like'. But these are not different things, but certain states of a so called 'quantum field'. TH (https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics ... Zyx-BOEAFQ Dr. Thomas Heger 12:09 AM (14 hours ago) _______________________________________________________________________________________ Planck's photon is an electromagnetic photon (resonator or em standing wave). "In any case the theory requires a correction, and I shall attempt in the following to accomplish this on the basis of the theory of electromagnetic radiation which I developed." (Planck, Intro). Next, you are implying wave-particle photons but the destruction of wave-particle photons to form the dark fringes of the diffraction pattern violates energy conservation. Plus, you use a quantum field argument which begs the question how can an expanding electromagnetic field be used to represent a quantum or particle structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-31 14:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <867d3af4-ef68-4289-9fcc-cd68026803b2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598738 |
"The existence of the Aether has been in dispute since the famous MMX was interpreted by Albert Einstein to mean that it was not detectable." Your statement is incorrect since Einstein uses the reversal of MMX to justify the existence of the ether, composed of matter, which vacuum definitively proves does not physically exist. "Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above." (Einstein6, § 16). "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether;" (Einstein7, Lecture, 1920).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-31 15:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb53f2af-6db9-4b39-9e7b-2d68f3a2e496n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598741 |
Now, élite climate scientists at Harvard, MIT Princeton and Berkeley are assuming that the earth's atmosphere is a large balloon where the temperature of the air within the balloon increases with the increase in the concentration of CO2 but the earth's atmosphere is much more complicated since the balloon model is entirely omitting the effects of the earth's ocean that covers 73% of the surface of the earth, the plants on the surface of the earth and even the intensity of the sun that is heating the earth which omission is because of man's enormous ego where since the most important part of climate change is the effect on man and not on the environment; therefore, scientists assume that the atmosphere is the main entity that is causing climate change since climate change is affecting the weather and humans only care about how things effect humans and not the environment. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If climate change is caused by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere then why is the more than 12 degree increase in the north pole's average temperature not accompanied with a 12% increase in the CO2 levels at the north pole? The reason is because the heated oceans are causing climate change not the CO2 levels. In addition, scientists (theoretical physicists) are extremely superficial and their ostensible theories and beliefs do not look deeply into what was written in the past. The past to them is what ever they say at the present, right or wrong, to justify their theory that they spout as fact. To solve a problem you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem. An always assume that the first solution is always incorrect and that mistakes are the foundation of scientific discovery. You cannot advance in science, if you cannot accept your mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 09:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1cvd0F59jfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598746 |
Am 01.01.2023 um 00:42 schrieb thor stoneman: > To solve a problem you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem. This correct and very important! The main issue with CO2, that concentrating all energies on this substance would cause, that all other issues were not covered. But if CO2 is 'barking up the wrong tree', than absolutely nothing would happen, if we reduce CO2. This by itself wouldn't be dangerous, only a waste of money, time and efforts. But if something else does in fact cause the real trouble in the mean time and the real problems receive not attention, than wrong activities for an extended time can cause severe trouble. I personally think, that clime-change is caused mainly by urbanisation, agriculture and deforestation. These all have influence on vegetation and on how much water is evaporated on the land. This evaporated water on land has a mayor impact on clouds formation over land and that on gorund temperatures. If land is seeled off, deforested and turned in to agricultures, than much more rain will simply run down into rivers and into the oceans. But the oceans contain already enough water, hence lost water on land will be lost from the water cycle. And that effect will cause less clouds and that hotter soil. This is a very simple mechanism, but entirly independent of CO2. The means to stop it would certainly include rebuilding of forests and protection of certain areas against conversion into land for agriculture. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 16:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63B22A23.6247@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #598746 |
thor stoneman wrote: > > > > “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" > > If climate change is caused by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere then why is the more than 12 degree increase in the north pole's average temperature not accompanied with a 12% increase in the CO2 levels at the north pole? The reason is because the heated oceans are causing climate change not the CO2 levels. In addition, scientists (theoretical physicists) are extremely superficial and their ostensible theories and beliefs do not look deeply into what was written in the past. The past t > > To solve a problem you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem. An always assume that the first solution is always incorrect and that mistakes are the foundation of scientific discovery. You cannot advance in science, if you cannot accept your mistakes. Yesterday it wasn't raining and now today it started to rain! Whats going?? It never rains in southern california but man it's pouring -- 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 | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1cuhoF55r3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598731 |
Am 31.12.2022 um 22:42 schrieb whodat: > > You think???? Am I allowed to draw any conclusions at all, or is that > reserved for you alone? I conclude you exhibit raging confusion above. > Several ways, in fact. I am not required to quantify further. You are responsible for your own activities alone and have to bare the consequences, if something is illegal. But that is simply not my concern. > > > In that case it would be polite, if you would say, why you think, > that my statement is wrong and in which aspect. > > > > If politeness actually worked I would be using it. Even clear insult > in the reductio ad absurdum genre barely puts a dent into your > misapprehensions. > Politeness is not based on politness on the other side. You are either polite or you are not. I personally could also reply with insults, in case I wanted to do that, but actually I don't. But the UseNet is a tough place and I received thousands of really nasty replies, which were full of hate and insults. So, what shall one do? Actually it is a good idea to stay calm, polite and on the topic. > > >>>> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in > space. > >> > >> This I wrote and stand by. Why did you edit out what I was answering? > > > > I can quote whatever I want to quote. > > > Your statement is still present in the article, which you have written. > > > But this article is mine and here I can decide, what I like to write > about. > > > > And as such I have every right to criticize it as I wish. I did that and > here you are whining about it. Do what you think you should. Your activities are yours and you are responsible for them, not me. But for my activities I'm responsible and you are not. > > > >>> Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere. > > >> Nitpicking. The CDC reports that only 144 out of 100000 die of cancer. > >> Does that make cancer unworthy of consideration? Do you have to > >> experience cancer to understand it? Or is it sufficient that those who > >> have experienced cancer have reported what that's like? > > > > > > This statement has no obvious connection to the fact, that we humans > usually do not see sunshine in outer space. > > > Why didn't you say that instead of making the incorrect case that you > did? This discussion would have taken a different tone had you been > clear from the beginning. I hasten to add that you are still wrong. I personally think, that sunshine in space is a different type of wave, which are called 'scalar waves', and that these waves are only converted into sunshine inside the atmosphere. We humans usually do not leave the atmosphere, hence cannot check, whether or not my claim is correct (or not). The picture is therefore: the sun emmits something, that causes sunshine here on Earth, but isn't sunshine in space. Inbetween Sun and Earth energy has other forms than what we see here on planet Earth. > > > >> Your real problem appears to be that we have lots of information about > >> how the earth is heated but we don't understand it well enough as yet. > > > > Tell this to the IPCC. > > > If this were a legal proceeding my correct response at this point would > be, "argues facts not in evidence." Are we to guess precisely what that > comment means because it sure isn't clear as stated. And you do this > sort of thing all the time. I suspect that you don't know any better, > and that makes you someone best not to enter into a discussion with. > I personally think, that IPCC is the 'head of the snake' and produces questionable theories, which were created to support something called 'New World Order' by extracting money from the general public for 'protection' (against climate change). These theories include something commonly called 'andropogenic climate change by CO2'. I regard this theory as propaganda of a self-proclaimed 'elite', which mocks the general public, while attempting to extract money for 'CO2 trade'. I meant, that CO2 is the wrong stuff and 'CO2 protection' is like 'barking up the wrong tree'. (The real stuff to worry about is water). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doodnath Sarti <ttha@dnhnahan.nh> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 08:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <torhf5$1bil3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #598753 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 31.12.2022 um 22:42 schrieb whodat: > >> You think???? Am I allowed to draw any conclusions at all, or is that >> reserved for you alone? I conclude you exhibit raging confusion above. >> Several ways, in fact. I am not required to quantify further. > > You are responsible for your own activities alone and have to bare the > consequences, if something is illegal. But that is simply not my > concern. he, this noname */_whodat_/*, acts apparently like _the_wife_part_ in a _gay_couple_. In many countries, illegal still.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 06:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1dc5eF72o7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598755 |
On 1/1/2023 2:49 AM, Doodnath Sarti wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 31.12.2022 um 22:42 schrieb whodat: >> >>> You think???? Am I allowed to draw any conclusions at all, or is that >>> reserved for you alone? I conclude you exhibit raging confusion above. >>> Several ways, in fact. I am not required to quantify further. >> >> You are responsible for your own activities alone and have to bare the >> consequences, if something is illegal. But that is simply not my >> concern. > > he, this noname */_whodat_/*, acts apparently like _the_wife_part_ in a > _gay_couple_. In many countries, illegal still. It is simply amazing how many ways this gay shiteating teenager (or preteen) finds to display what a fool he is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 15:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <080e2f16-4f9c-42da-acca-97ff3418c06fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598766 |
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:21:07 AM UTC-8, whodat wrote: Saying radio waves do not expand is patently incorrect. Also, you say that you do not understand the question regarding Faraday's law. I will simplify the question by asking: "is Faraday's induction effect emitting light?" Plus, Einstein's GR (gravity) is based on Maxwell's equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 16:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ca5b6bfd-a3a8-4789-b169-e8240fcdbdb7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598804 |
"No. Electromagnetic waves are photons. Each is akin to a soliton. It keeps going through space without dissipating. What people think of as expanding radio waves consist of lots of photons emitted in all directions." Your statement is violating common sense since radio waves are not emitting light (photons).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 16:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3bc2b3d0-3254-482f-93ac-08bdb7ba77bbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598806 |
"No. Electromagnetic waves are photons. Each is akin to a soliton. It keeps going through space without dissipating. What people think of as expanding radio waves consist of lots of photons emitted in all directions." Your statement is violating common sense since radio waves are not emitting light, X-rays or gamma rays (photons).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 17:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a27e3877-a6fe-4432-ab09-60d7fa555e7fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598810 |
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:19:51 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote: > Your statement is violating common sense since radio waves are not emitting light, X-rays or gamma rays (photons). Perhaps you should actually learn just what a photon is before just guessing... https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what-is-a-photon#:~:text=Radio%20waves%20and%20microwaves%3B%20infrared,at%20work%20all%20around%20you. "Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-01 17:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a657d499-4c9b-417c-a5b1-abef90f33b76n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598820 |
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 5:10:09 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: "Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons." This statement does not make any sense since radio waves, microwaves, X-rays and gamma rays are not emitting light (the stuff that you can see in the dark).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-02 03:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tou51p$1n6gr$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #598834 |
On 1/1/2023 8:56 PM, thor stoneman wrote: > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 5:10:09 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > "Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons." > > > This statement does not make any sense since radio waves, microwaves, X-rays and gamma rays are not emitting light (the stuff that you can see in the dark). > Radio waves don't emit photons because radio waves ARE photons. Idjit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-03 07:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1i0n7Ft26fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #598863 |
Am 02.01.2023 um 09:36 schrieb Volney: > On 1/1/2023 8:56 PM, thor stoneman wrote: >> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 5:10:09 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: >> >> "Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays >> and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of >> photons." >> >> >> This statement does not make any sense since radio waves, microwaves, >> X-rays and gamma rays are not emitting light (the stuff that you can >> see in the dark). > Radio waves don't emit photons because radio waves ARE photons. Well, if you equate radio waves and photons, this should work both ways - like: photons are radio waves. I would not really agree, because photons are 'packets' of something, while radio waves are assumed to be continuous. So: photons are not built from waves and waves are not built from photons. Photons are certain states, which behave in the odd ways, which QM deals with. But on the macro level the waves behave like continuous structures. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-03 12:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <04d09532-5179-492f-a7e1-c47ca143d610n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #598927 |
Climate Change
The effect of nuclear power on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium where 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used in a reactor core that fission reaction causes the fuel rods to radiate heat which reactor core is cooled using a water source. Every six years the fuel rods are replaced with new uranium rods during the refueling. The used depleted uranium fuel rods are cooled and stored in onsite cooling pools. The world’s 440 nuclear power plants have an estimated average of three reactors at each site; consequently, there are a total of approximately 1,320 nuclear reactors worldwide where roughly 911 reactors use a once-through cooling system that discharges thermodynamics pollution (heated water) directly back into the water source.
Global warming is said to be caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 but the heat capacity of the earth’s atmosphere has not significantly increased in the last 100 years, and, only .04% of the earth’s atmosphere is composed of CO2; consequently, CO2 is not the primary cause of climate change. The heat capacity of ocean water is six times greater than the heat capacity of the earth's atmosphere. The average global ocean surface temperature has increased approximately 1.5° F in the last 100 years but since the ocean has a heat capacity six times greater than that of the earth’s atmosphere, the ocean temperature increase is comparable to a 9° F increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature which would account for the 12° F peaks in the polar temperatures. The 911 once-through cooled reactors and 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium fuel rods that heated water (120o F) is directly discharged into the water source are the primary causes of climate change where the increase in the ocean temperature is shifting the earth’s surface temperature equilibrium which is resulting in the earth’s present weather anomalies. To solve a problem, you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem. You cannot advance in science, if you cannot accept your mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web