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 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t17957$qnh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580622 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. The physics you say is all wrong was formulated in the 1600s, two centuries before Einstein. Your problem isn’t with Einstein. It’s with all physics since the 1600s. You say that all the textbooks are wrong with the physics that’s been known since the 1600s. >> >>> 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 > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e73be969-2ca2-4fd3-b0f0-b15742d534c7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580630 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 9:11:06 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > kenseto <set...@att.net> 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. > The physics you say is all wrong was formulated in the 1600s, two centuries > before Einstein. > > Your problem isn’t with Einstein. It’s with all physics since the 1600s. > You say that all the textbooks are wrong with the physics that’s been known > since the 1600s. > No idiot, I only said that you and all the physicists and all the text books are wrong when all of you claim that a single attractive force can make an object go around in circles. Why? Because it can't and it's against the law of physics. A single attractive force will make an object to go in a straight line toward the force source.....no exception. In the case of gravity......it is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force and that's why it is able to make the moon to orbit the earth for billions of years. > > >> > >>> if th ey claim that gravity is a single attractive force and at the same > >>> time claiming that make > >>> gravity can cause the mingle attractive forceoon to orbit the earth for billions of years. toward the source > >>> 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 > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 12:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t17j4r$1dp3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580631 |
On 3/20/2022 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 9:11:06 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> kenseto <set...@att.net> 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: >>>>>>> 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. >> The physics you say is all wrong was formulated in the 1600s, two centuries >> before Einstein. >> >> Your problem isn’t with Einstein. It’s with all physics since the 1600s. >> You say that all the textbooks are wrong with the physics that’s been known >> since the 1600s. >> > No idiot, I only said that you and all the physicists and all the text books are wrong > when all of you claim that a single attractive force can make an object go around in circles. Meaning you say all the physics since the 1600s is wrong. Not only does that make you a fruitcake, it makes you an uber-fruitcake. You can't even recognize what you disagree with. > Why? Because it can't and it's against the law of physics. Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the so-called "Laws of Physics". [snip crap]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa555d39-e70f-40ad-821f-546ad6f43aaan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580634 |
On Sunday, 20 March 2022 at 17:01:35 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 3/20/2022 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 9:11:06 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> kenseto <set...@att.net> 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: > > >>>>>>> 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. > >> The physics you say is all wrong was formulated in the 1600s, two centuries > >> before Einstein. > >> > >> Your problem isn’t with Einstein. It’s with all physics since the 1600s. > >> You say that all the textbooks are wrong with the physics that’s been known > >> since the 1600s. > >> > > No idiot, I only said that you and all the physicists and all the text books are wrong > > when all of you claim that a single attractive force can make an object go around in circles. > Meaning you say all the physics since the 1600s is wrong. About its absolute time, stupid Mike? > > Why? Because it can't and it's against the law of physics. > Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the > so-called "Laws of Physics". No, stupid Mike; your idiot guru has refuted this common sense prejudice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 09:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3710d840-8745-4006-9b7a-d1095e96dd8cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580634 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 3/20/2022 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 9:11:06 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> kenseto <set...@att.net> 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: > > >>>>>>> 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. > >> The physics you say is all wrong was formulated in the 1600s, two centuries > >> before Einstein. > >> > >> Your problem isn’t with Einstein. It’s with all physics since the 1600s. > >> You say that all the textbooks are wrong with the physics that’s been known > >> since the 1600s. > >> > > No idiot, I only said that you and all the physicists and all the text books are wrong > > when all of you claim that a single attractive force can make an object go around in circles. > Meaning you say all the physics since the 1600s is wrong. > > Not only does that make you a fruitcake, it makes you an uber-fruitcake. > You can't even recognize what you disagree with. > > Why? Because it can't and it's against the law of physics. > Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the > so-called "Laws of Physics". Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture. You don't even understand Newton's first law. > > [snip crap]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j9p81dF3ljiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580637 |
On 3/20/2022 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: <snip> >> Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the >> so-called "Laws of Physics". > > Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture. > you don't even understand Newton's first law. So here's Newton's first law: "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force." Source: <https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/> So please tell me whether you think that gravity acting on the moon is a balanced force. If you think it is, please tell me what you think the source(s) for such balancing force(s) is. Thanks. It seems the unbalanced source is the earth. So what is equal and counteracting? I'm not arguing with you about this point, just a "put up or shut up" discussion. Arguing is easy, proving your point might not be as simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e41e4a5c-3e43-4de1-b9c3-cdcae82e9b63n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580640 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:53:53 PM UTC-4, whodat wrote:
> On 3/20/2022 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the
> >> so-called "Laws of Physics".
> >
> > Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture.
> > you don't even understand Newton's first law.
>
> So here's Newton's first law:
>
> "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in
> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an
> unbalanced force."
>
> Source:
>
> <https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/>
>
> So please tell me whether you think that gravity acting on the moon is
> a balanced force. If you think it is, please tell me what you think the
> source(s) for such balancing force(s) is. Thanks.
y
Read the paper in the following link:
http://www,modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Gravity is a balancing force as follows:
1. It is an attractive EM force and it is derived from the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the
same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure aether called the E-Matrix .This give rise to
a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as the universe expands. This repulsive effect is called
the CRE force (cosmological Repulsive Effect Force).
3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above balancing forces . This enables the moon to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth.
>It seems the balancing
> unbalanced source is the earth. So what ia comllbined balancings equal and counteracting? I'm
> not arguing with you about this point, just a "put up or shut up"
> discussion. Arguing is easy, proving your point might not be as simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j9pe8pF4rohU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580644 |
On 3/20/2022 2:03 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:53:53 PM UTC-4, whodat wrote: >> On 3/20/2022 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> <snip> >>>> Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the >>>> so-called "Laws of Physics". >>> >>> Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture. >>> you don't even understand Newton's first law. >> >> So here's Newton's first law: >> >> "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in >> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an >> unbalanced force." >> >> Source: >> >> <https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/> >> >> So please tell me whether you think that gravity acting on the moon is >> a balanced force. If you think it is, please tell me what you think the >> source(s) for such balancing force(s) is. Thanks. > y > Read the paper in the following link: > http://www,modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > Gravity is a balancing force as follows: Let's start with a properly formatted link, which is NOT what you have posted. Next even when corrected my browser warns it is a security risk and will not go there. The net effect is that you have some6thing on the internet that is not accessible to mere mortals like me. > 1. It is an attractive EM force and it is derived from the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the > same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. Skin rejuvenation (ematrix) and the moon? > 2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure aether called the E-Matrix .This give rise to > a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as the universe expands. This repulsive effect is called > the CRE force (cosmological Repulsive Effect Force). If the universe is expanding it cannot already be infinite in size. This is a discussion you should be settling with Arindam Banerjee who is a proponent of an infinitely sized universe. > 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above balancing forces . This enables the moon to maintain a stable > orbit around the earth. Nice science fiction but this is not the place to sell that storyline. <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t181nm$emd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580653 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/20/2022 2:03 PM, kenseto wrote: >> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:53:53 PM UTC-4, whodat wrote: >>> On 3/20/2022 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the >>>>> so-called "Laws of Physics". >>>> >>>> Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture. >>>> you don't even understand Newton's first law. >>> >>> So here's Newton's first law: >>> >>> "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in >>> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an >>> unbalanced force." >>> >>> Source: >>> >>> <https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/> >>> >>> So please tell me whether you think that gravity acting on the moon is >>> a balanced force. If you think it is, please tell me what you think the >>> source(s) for such balancing force(s) is. Thanks. >> y >> Read the paper in the following link: >> http://www,modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >> Gravity is a balancing force as follows: > > Let's start with a properly formatted link, which is NOT what you have > posted. Next even when corrected my browser warns it is a security risk > and will not go there. The net effect is that you have some6thing on the > internet that is not accessible to mere mortals like me. > >> 1. It is an attractive EM force and it is derived from the fact that the >> earth and the moon are expanding in the >> same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > > Skin rejuvenation (ematrix) and the moon? > >> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure aether >> called the E-Matrix .This give rise to >> a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as the universe >> expands. This repulsive effect is called >> the CRE force (cosmological Repulsive Effect Force). > > If the universe is expanding it cannot already be infinite in size. Well, this isn’t correct. I think you are trying to fix the notion of expansion to whether a boundary is moving and in an infinite space there is no boundary. But expansion can be conceived without any boundary. Just imagine a tinkertoy lattice that goes on forever without there being any edge to the lattice. One day the lattice spacing is 1, the next day it is 2, the next day it is 3. You’ve clearly ideated expansion without necessitating any boundary. > This > is a discussion you should be settling with Arindam Banerjee who is a > proponent of an infinitely sized universe. > >> 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above balancing forces . This >> enables the moon to maintain a stable >> orbit around the earth. > > Nice science fiction but this is not the place to sell that storyline. > > <snip> > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9be4c16-4113-4b5a-8bc4-7d4e9a6857a4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580656 |
On Sunday, 20 March 2022 at 21:10:33 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, this isn’t correct. I think you are trying to fix the notion of > expansion to whether a boundary is moving and in an infinite space there is > no boundary. But expansion can be conceived without any boundary. And purple unicorns can exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t3vUbSwLjRufT47b4PAtq1BkUbY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #580657 |
Le 20/03/2022 à 22:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > On Sunday, 20 March 2022 at 21:10:33 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Well, this isn’t correct. I think you are trying to fix the notion of >> expansion to whether a boundary is moving and in an infinite space there is >> no boundary. But expansion can be conceived without any boundary. > > And purple unicorns can exist. There are some very beautiful things in the theory of relativity. You don't have to criticize EVERYTHING. The best behavior is "the middle way". Do not reject everything, but above all do not accept everything. When a guitarist does not stretch his strings enough, they sound low and unpleasant, but if he stretches them too much, they break. So unicorns have to be hunted, and there are plenty of them in the SR, and they greatly detract from the theory (whatever the followers say). But do not shoot the sheep and goats that do no harm. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-20 18:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j9pr1jF75utU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580656 |
On 3/20/2022 3:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/20/2022 2:03 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:53:53 PM UTC-4, whodat wrote: >>>> On 3/20/2022 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>>> Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the >>>>>> so-called "Laws of Physics". >>>>> >>>>> Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture. >>>>> you don't even understand Newton's first law. >>>> >>>> So here's Newton's first law: >>>> >>>> "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in >>>> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an >>>> unbalanced force." >>>> >>>> Source: >>>> >>>> <https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/> >>>> >>>> So please tell me whether you think that gravity acting on the moon is >>>> a balanced force. If you think it is, please tell me what you think the >>>> source(s) for such balancing force(s) is. Thanks. >>> y >>> Read the paper in the following link: >>> http://www,modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>> Gravity is a balancing force as follows: >> >> Let's start with a properly formatted link, which is NOT what you have >> posted. Next even when corrected my browser warns it is a security risk >> and will not go there. The net effect is that you have some6thing on the >> internet that is not accessible to mere mortals like me. >> >>> 1. It is an attractive EM force and it is derived from the fact that the >>> earth and the moon are expanding in the >>> same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. >> >> Skin rejuvenation (ematrix) and the moon? >> >>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure aether >>> called the E-Matrix .This give rise to >>> a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as the universe >>> expands. This repulsive effect is called >>> the CRE force (cosmological Repulsive Effect Force). >> >> If the universe is expanding it cannot already be infinite in size. > > Well, this isn’t correct. I think you are trying to fix the notion of > expansion to whether a boundary is moving and in an infinite space there is > no boundary. But expansion can be conceived without any boundary. "can be conceived" implicates no no limitations. A cute but meaningless exercise. > Just > imagine a tinkertoy lattice that goes on forever without there being any > edge to the lattice. One day the lattice spacing is 1, the next day it is > 2, the next day it is 3. You’ve clearly ideated expansion without > necessitating any boundary. You initially create an infinite lattice. The internal spacing has no meaningful effect. Cute trap, and this is why I generally don't carry on discussions with you, a practice I now resume. When I was 14 years old a playful logician mopped the floor with me arguing in favor of a flat earth. I found the exercise helpful in subsequently recognizing discussions to avoid because I don't find such discussions pleasant or useful. Additionally your intrusion has nothing to do with the topic I was discussing with Soto and has no interest for me, but you and Soto should feel free to carry on as you wish. >> This >> is a discussion you should be settling with Arindam Banerjee who is a >> proponent of an infinitely sized universe. >> >>> 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above balancing forces . This >>> enables the moon to maintain a stable >>> orbit around the earth. >> >> Nice science fiction but this is not the place to sell that storyline. >> >> <snip> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-21 11:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t19odk$ok3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580661 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/20/2022 3:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/20/2022 2:03 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:53:53 PM UTC-4, whodat wrote: >>>>> On 3/20/2022 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the >>>>>>> so-called "Laws of Physics". >>>>>> >>>>>> Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture. >>>>>> you don't even understand Newton's first law. >>>>> >>>>> So here's Newton's first law: >>>>> >>>>> "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in >>>>> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an >>>>> unbalanced force." >>>>> >>>>> Source: >>>>> >>>>> <https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/> >>>>> >>>>> So please tell me whether you think that gravity acting on the moon is >>>>> a balanced force. If you think it is, please tell me what you think the >>>>> source(s) for such balancing force(s) is. Thanks. >>>> y >>>> Read the paper in the following link: >>>> http://www,modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>> Gravity is a balancing force as follows: >>> >>> Let's start with a properly formatted link, which is NOT what you have >>> posted. Next even when corrected my browser warns it is a security risk >>> and will not go there. The net effect is that you have some6thing on the >>> internet that is not accessible to mere mortals like me. >>> >>>> 1. It is an attractive EM force and it is derived from the fact that the >>>> earth and the moon are expanding in the >>>> same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. >>> >>> Skin rejuvenation (ematrix) and the moon? >>> >>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure aether >>>> called the E-Matrix .This give rise to >>>> a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as the universe >>>> expands. This repulsive effect is called >>>> the CRE force (cosmological Repulsive Effect Force). >>> >>> If the universe is expanding it cannot already be infinite in size. >> >> Well, this isn’t correct. I think you are trying to fix the notion of >> expansion to whether a boundary is moving and in an infinite space there is >> no boundary. > > > But expansion can be conceived without any boundary. > > "can be conceived" implicates no no limitations. A cute but meaningless > exercise. I don’t understand your complaint. Your previous statement said that expansion is logically tied to finiteness. It’s not. You may have OTHER concerns with lack of boundaries, but that’s not from observation of expansion. After all, the observations that physicists have used to conclude the expansion of the universe have nothing to do with observations of the boundary of the universe, right? > >> Just >> imagine a tinkertoy lattice that goes on forever without there being any >> edge to the lattice. One day the lattice spacing is 1, the next day it is >> 2, the next day it is 3. You’ve clearly ideated expansion without >> necessitating any boundary. > > You initially create an infinite lattice. The internal spacing has no > meaningful effect. I’m not sure what you mean about meaningful effect. Can you explain? > Cute trap, and this is why I generally don't carry on > discussions with you, a practice I now resume. When I was 14 years old > a playful logician mopped the floor with me arguing in favor of a flat > earth. I found the exercise helpful in subsequently recognizing > discussions to avoid because I don't find such discussions pleasant or > useful. Additionally your intrusion has nothing to do with the topic I > was discussing with Soto and has no interest for me, but you and Soto > should feel free to carry on as you wish. Seto? > >>> This >>> is a discussion you should be settling with Arindam Banerjee who is a >>> proponent of an infinitely sized universe. >>> >>>> 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above balancing forces . This >>>> enables the moon to maintain a stable >>>> orbit around the earth. >>> >>> Nice science fiction but this is not the place to sell that storyline. >>> >>> <snip> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-21 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j9sdrlFmf4dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580670 |
On 3/21/2022 6:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/20/2022 3:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/20/2022 2:03 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:53:53 PM UTC-4, whodat wrote: >>>>>> On 3/20/2022 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the >>>>>>>> so-called "Laws of Physics". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture. >>>>>>> you don't even understand Newton's first law. >>>>>> >>>>>> So here's Newton's first law: >>>>>> >>>>>> "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in >>>>>> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an >>>>>> unbalanced force." >>>>>> >>>>>> Source: >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/> >>>>>> >>>>>> So please tell me whether you think that gravity acting on the moon is >>>>>> a balanced force. If you think it is, please tell me what you think the >>>>>> source(s) for such balancing force(s) is. Thanks. >>>>> y >>>>> Read the paper in the following link: >>>>> http://www,modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>> Gravity is a balancing force as follows: >>>> >>>> Let's start with a properly formatted link, which is NOT what you have >>>> posted. Next even when corrected my browser warns it is a security risk >>>> and will not go there. The net effect is that you have some6thing on the >>>> internet that is not accessible to mere mortals like me. >>>> >>>>> 1. It is an attractive EM force and it is derived from the fact that the >>>>> earth and the moon are expanding in the >>>>> same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. >>>> >>>> Skin rejuvenation (ematrix) and the moon? >>>> >>>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure aether >>>>> called the E-Matrix .This give rise to >>>>> a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as the universe >>>>> expands. This repulsive effect is called >>>>> the CRE force (cosmological Repulsive Effect Force). >>>> >>>> If the universe is expanding it cannot already be infinite in size. >>> >>> Well, this isn’t correct. I think you are trying to fix the notion of >>> expansion to whether a boundary is moving and in an infinite space there is >>> no boundary. >> >> >> But expansion can be conceived without any boundary. >> >> "can be conceived" implicates no no limitations. A cute but meaningless >> exercise. > > I don’t understand your complaint. > Your previous statement said that expansion is logically tied to > finiteness. It’s not. You may have OTHER concerns with lack of boundaries, > but that’s not from observation of expansion. Your model lacks precision necessary to make many of the possible observations. > After all, the observations that physicists have used to conclude the > expansion of the universe have nothing to do with observations of the > boundary of the universe, right? I'm going to hate myself in the morning... Which "observations of the boundary of the universe" are you discussing, those claiming an expanding universe, or a static one, or what? And too, is the universe you like to talk about flat or not? These are some of the myriad of reasons I did not want to get involved in this discussion, and the reason I am stopping with this posting. Cranks have self-important opinions, I do not, I have many many questions, and damn few answers, and even those have so many caveats that they're, on their best days, ill defined. >>> Just >>> imagine a tinkertoy lattice that goes on forever without there being any >>> edge to the lattice. One day the lattice spacing is 1, the next day it is >>> 2, the next day it is 3. You’ve clearly ideated expansion without >>> necessitating any boundary. What means "forever?" Then what means forever once the spacing in the lattice begins to grow? On its best day, "forever" is a miserable descriptive. Is "forever(1)" identical to "forever(2)?" >> You initially create an infinite lattice. The internal spacing has no >> meaningful effect. > I’m not sure what you mean about meaningful effect. Can you explain? No, I cannot. Far too many undefined variables are in play. Where something is undefined, I get to choose, and I chose "no meaningful effect." >> Cute trap, and this is why I generally don't carry on >> discussions with you, a practice I now resume. When I was 14 years old >> a playful logician mopped the floor with me arguing in favor of a flat >> earth. I found the exercise helpful in subsequently recognizing >> discussions to avoid because I don't find such discussions pleasant or >> useful. Additionally your intrusion has nothing to do with the topic I >> was discussing with Soto and has no interest for me, but you and Soto >> should feel free to carry on as you wish. > > Seto? Why not? >>>> This >>>> is a discussion you should be settling with Arindam Banerjee who is a >>>> proponent of an infinitely sized universe. >>>> >>>>> 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above balancing forces . This >>>>> enables the moon to maintain a stable >>>>> orbit around the earth. >>>> >>>> Nice science fiction but this is not the place to sell that storyline. >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-22 00:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1b40f$c52$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580703 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/21/2022 6:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/20/2022 3:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/20/2022 2:03 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:53:53 PM UTC-4, whodat wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/20/2022 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:01:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, a single attractive force being necessary *is* one of the >>>>>>>>> so-called "Laws of Physics". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stupid Mike go back and make some wooden furniture. >>>>>>>> you don't even understand Newton's first law. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So here's Newton's first law: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in >>>>>>> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an >>>>>>> unbalanced force." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Source: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So please tell me whether you think that gravity acting on the moon is >>>>>>> a balanced force. If you think it is, please tell me what you think the >>>>>>> source(s) for such balancing force(s) is. Thanks. >>>>>> y >>>>>> Read the paper in the following link: >>>>>> http://www,modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>> Gravity is a balancing force as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Let's start with a properly formatted link, which is NOT what you have >>>>> posted. Next even when corrected my browser warns it is a security risk >>>>> and will not go there. The net effect is that you have some6thing on the >>>>> internet that is not accessible to mere mortals like me. >>>>> >>>>>> 1. It is an attractive EM force and it is derived from the fact that the >>>>>> earth and the moon are expanding in the >>>>>> same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. >>>>> >>>>> Skin rejuvenation (ematrix) and the moon? >>>>> >>>>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure aether >>>>>> called the E-Matrix .This give rise to >>>>>> a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as the universe >>>>>> expands. This repulsive effect is called >>>>>> the CRE force (cosmological Repulsive Effect Force). >>>>> >>>>> If the universe is expanding it cannot already be infinite in size. >>>> >>>> Well, this isn’t correct. I think you are trying to fix the notion of >>>> expansion to whether a boundary is moving and in an infinite space there is >>>> no boundary. >>> >>> >>> But expansion can be conceived without any boundary. >>> >>> "can be conceived" implicates no no limitations. A cute but meaningless >>> exercise. >> >> I don’t understand your complaint. >> Your previous statement said that expansion is logically tied to >> finiteness. It’s not. You may have OTHER concerns with lack of boundaries, >> but that’s not from observation of expansion. > > Your model lacks precision necessary to make many of the possible > observations. What model? What possible observations? The question is whether expansion is LOGICALLY tied to the existence of a boundary. > >> After all, the observations that physicists have used to conclude the >> expansion of the universe have nothing to do with observations of the >> boundary of the universe, right? > > I'm going to hate myself in the morning... Which "observations of the > boundary of the universe" are you discussing, those claiming an > expanding universe, or a static one, or what? The observation of the linearity of recessional speed of galaxies as a function of distance. This is exactly the observation of the lattice I referred to, except that the lattice is not regular in the case of galaxies. So what? > And too, is the universe > you like to talk about flat or not? Again, this has no bearing on whether the expansion is tied to boundaries, and whether the observations of expansion have anything to do with observation of a boundary (they don’t). > These are some of the myriad of > reasons I did not want to get involved in this discussion, and the > reason I am stopping with this posting. Cranks have self-important > opinions, I do not, I have many many questions, and damn few answers, > and even those have so many caveats that they're, on their best days, > ill defined. In this case, you seem to be worried about a lot of particulars that have no bearing on whether there is a logical connection between expansion and finite vs infinite universes. It’s also true that the color spectra of stars don’t have anything to do with it, and it would be pointless to include that in the question. > >>>> Just >>>> imagine a tinkertoy lattice that goes on forever without there being any >>>> edge to the lattice. One day the lattice spacing is 1, the next day it is >>>> 2, the next day it is 3. You’ve clearly ideated expansion without >>>> necessitating any boundary. > > What means "forever?" Then what means forever once the spacing in the > lattice begins to grow? On its best day, "forever" is a miserable > descriptive. Is "forever(1)" identical to "forever(2)?" > >>> You initially create an infinite lattice. The internal spacing has no >>> meaningful effect. > >> I’m not sure what you mean about meaningful effect. Can you explain? > > No, I cannot. Far too many undefined variables are in play. Where > something is undefined, I get to choose, and I chose "no meaningful > effect." OK, so we’ll just let that sit as a unsubstantive comment that doesn’t really mean much. > >>> Cute trap, and this is why I generally don't carry on >>> discussions with you, a practice I now resume. When I was 14 years old >>> a playful logician mopped the floor with me arguing in favor of a flat >>> earth. I found the exercise helpful in subsequently recognizing >>> discussions to avoid because I don't find such discussions pleasant or >>> useful. Additionally your intrusion has nothing to do with the topic I >>> was discussing with Soto and has no interest for me, but you and Soto >>> should feel free to carry on as you wish. >> >> Seto? > > Why not? > >>>>> This >>>>> is a discussion you should be settling with Arindam Banerjee who is a >>>>> proponent of an infinitely sized universe. >>>>> >>>>>> 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above balancing forces . This >>>>>> enables the moon to maintain a stable >>>>>> orbit around the earth. >>>>> >>>>> Nice science fiction but this is not the place to sell that storyline. >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-22 11:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j9uar0F32cbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580712 |
On 3/21/2022 7:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> Your model lacks precision necessary to make many of the possible >> observations. > > What model? What possible observations? The question is whether expansion > is LOGICALLY tied to the existence of a boundary. Disingenuous argument. Read your own historical posts vis a vis "logic."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-22 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1ct45$r4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580745 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/21/2022 7:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > >>> Your model lacks precision necessary to make many of the possible >>> observations. >> >> What model? What possible observations? The question is whether expansion >> is LOGICALLY tied to the existence of a boundary. > > Disingenuous argument. Read your own historical posts vis a vis "logic." > YOU made the claim that an infinite universe is logically incompatible with an expanding one. It is not logically incompatible. Nor is a universe that is both expanding and infinite incompatible with observations. If you have some grounds for claiming that either logic or observations drives a hard choice between a finite, expanding universe or an infinite, static universe, then trot them out here. Or withdraw the unsubstantiated claim. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-22 11:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j9udanF3hoaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580748 |
On 3/22/2022 11:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/21/2022 7:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> Your model lacks precision necessary to make many of the possible >>>> observations. >>> >>> What model? What possible observations? The question is whether expansion >>> is LOGICALLY tied to the existence of a boundary. >> >> Disingenuous argument. Read your own historical posts vis a vis "logic." >> > > YOU made the claim that an infinite universe is logically incompatible with > an expanding one. It is not logically incompatible. Nor is a universe that > is both expanding and infinite incompatible with observations. You're finally outed as a crank. The observable universe is visualized by observers as expanding. Then you assume that the universe is infinite in size, something for which there is no evidence without some leaps of logic but you embrace those anyway. An infinite universe is a conjecture, not established as fact. Even the observations of an expanding universe has a number of valid questions that could eventually cause abandonment of that idea. https://theconversation.com/is-space-infinite-we-asked-5-experts-165742 In another current discussion you recognize that it isn't always reality that is observed when one observer sees two synchronized clocks. There is a tenuous relationship between observation and fact. Here you argue out of the other side of your mouth that visualization is fact. And how many times have you insisted that logic has no place in science arguments? You've been arguing so long and hard that you've lost your grip on reality. I know that science consists of models that exhibit discontinuity, yet you argue otherwise. If you want to design a mathematical proof that a boundless universe can expand, then do it, but don't use "observed universe" argumentation in place of a peer reviewed "proof." > If you have some grounds for claiming that either logic or observations > drives a hard choice between a finite, expanding universe or an infinite, > static universe, then trot them out here. Or withdraw the unsubstantiated > claim. Guess what, this sci.physics.relativity is not a peer reviewed journal, it is a discussion group. Get a grip. Usenet is a place to explore ideas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-22 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oj8zKnNFHEHQEsmE37bfiIvkxjw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #580751 |
Le 22/03/2022 à 17:54, whodat a écrit : > Guess what, this sci.physics.relativity is not a peer reviewed journal, > it is a discussion group. Get a grip. Usenet is a place to explore > ideas. That is very well said. Unfortunately, there are also heads of hateful lunatics who berate, threaten and harass. They understood very well that the free forums had to be exterminated. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-22 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1de8a$kfo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580752 |
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote: > Le 22/03/2022 à 17:54, whodat a écrit : >> Guess what, this sci.physics.relativity is not a peer reviewed journal, >> it is a discussion group. Get a grip. Usenet is a place to explore >> ideas. > > That is very well said. > > Unfortunately, there are also heads of hateful lunatics who berate, > threaten and harass. > > They understood very well that the free forums had to be exterminated. > > R.H. > I think the main problem is that you personally want people to pay attention to your ideas but you have no interest in understanding anyone else’s ideas. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 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