Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391989 > unrolled thread
| Started by | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-10 15:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-09 11:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 254 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 15:26 -0700
Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-10 17:59 -0500
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 16:16 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 16:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 16:47 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 00:15 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:30 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 19:03 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 04:19 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 05:35 +0200
Re: Particle physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-21 13:16 +1000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 13:12 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 12:35 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 20:36 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 15:24 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 14:43 -0700
Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 17:25 -0500
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:14 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:20 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:01 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 16:30 -0700
Re: Particle physics Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-09-18 03:12 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 13:10 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 17:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:26 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:29 -0500
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 18:41 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:12 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 18:46 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:31 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:21 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-19 23:44 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-20 17:51 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-22 21:54 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 22:13 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:42 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-25 02:29 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:59 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 02:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:18 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:32 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:46 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 22:00 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 08:48 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 11:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:25 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-29 00:34 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:05 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 01:52 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:19 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:22 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:27 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:08 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:20 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 12:26 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 16:57 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:30 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:56 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:12 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:31 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:56 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 14:59 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:02 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:09 -0500
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 16:52 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:53 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:12 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:20 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:33 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:40 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-01 20:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 05:28 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 04:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 12:07 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 05:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 14:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 07:33 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 21:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 22:01 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 15:07 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 01:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 19:49 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 03:58 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 04:43 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 13:46 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 07:56 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 20:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 17:06 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:48 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 15:08 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:49 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:30 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:11 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:18 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:56 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 03:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:45 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 13:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 20:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 16:22 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-08 14:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 03:07 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:14 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 03:18 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:17 -0500
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 16:57 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 04:03 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:19 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:25 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:47 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:15 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 14:59 -0500
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:29 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:48 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:55 -0500
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:20 -0500
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:38 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:46 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:23 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 14:17 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:30 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 20:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:04 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 06:09 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:24 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:38 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:26 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-05 04:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 17:04 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:06 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:14 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 02:22 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 07:23 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 02:52 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 21:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 06:16 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 06:44 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 20:29 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:08 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-08 14:17 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 02:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 12:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 06:19 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 20:34 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 19:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:11 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:20 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 04:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 14:20 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:21 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 02:44 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 09:25 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 12:22 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 12:25 +0000
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 17:01 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 04:21 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 12:25 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:09 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:21 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:04 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 17:16 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 23:19 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 18:11 +0200
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 14:26 -0500
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 10:16 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 17:36 +0000
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 20:53 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:18 +0000
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 18:00 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 17:29 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:01 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 02:39 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:18 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:22 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:44 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 21:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:12 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 10:59 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:46 -0700
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:09 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 20:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:35 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-29 12:13 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:22 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 01:40 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:16 -0500
Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-28 10:38 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 20:21 +0000
Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-28 20:35 -0500
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 17:19 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 09:11 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 12:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 15:23 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 20:06 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 16:09 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 10:56 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 10:58 -0700
Re: Particle physics akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 13:46 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:34 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 11:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 15:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 16:03 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 18:12 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 11:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:34 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 12:57 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:04 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:29 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-29 13:04 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:08 +0200
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:23 +0200
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 12:10 -0700
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 21:50 +0200
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 08:23 +0200
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 11:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 15:09 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 14:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:01 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 15:14 -0700
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 19:27 +0200
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:39 -0700
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 20:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c04b0fd2-1620-426e-8feb-32a11ca0179f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395139 |
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 2:29:49 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Oh FFS. You actually think that's witticism? > > > > Gobbledegook, > > That's more like it. > > > but that's what cranks do. > > Don't flatter yourself. Yoi don't have the wit to be a crank. But YOU do have the wit: All it takes is a half, halfwit. > > > Feel free to show how particles do it. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Experimental_confirmation > > See the invitation above, Pointy Head. > See the words "feel free to show how", Pointy Head. > Try to get it into your pointy little head, Poiny Head: > stating that something occurs is not *showing how* it occurs. Only cranks, kooks, crackpots and halfwits just gotta know how exactly it happens. Well, halfwit, the real world doesn't work according to your delusions. First you have to accept the REALITY that it DOES happen, which you are congenitally incapable of doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvhvvm.lh7.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395171 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > Oh FFS. You actually think that's witticism? > > > > > > Gobbledegook, > > > > That's more like it. > > > > > but that's what cranks do. > > > > Don't flatter yourself. Yoi don't have the wit to be a crank. > > But YOU do have the wit: More than enough, as it happens. > All it takes is a half, Even that's too much for you. > halfwit. You wish. > > > > Feel free to show how particles do it. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Experimental_confirmation > > > > See the invitation above, Pointy Head. > > See the words "feel free to show how", Pointy Head. > > Try to get it into your pointy little head, Poiny Head: > > stating that something occurs is not *showing how* it occurs. > > Only cranks, kooks, crackpots and halfwits just gotta know how A simple, obvious thing like "matter waves"? Don't be stupider than you have to, please. With such phenomena, if you can't show how, your "theory" is worthless. But then you're the blundering lackwit who thinks I'm unaware of the strength of the gravitational force. Tell me: how often does your keeper have to remind you to breathe? Yer should'a taken a look at my theory: frequency and wavelength are defined much more elegantly and rationally than de Broglie did it. And my definitions are explicatory too. ----idiot burble snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fdd2faf-5fed-4226-a210-6268086fed60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395189 |
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 8:17:29 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > Ned "the idiot" Latham wrote: > > > > > > See the invitation above, Pointy Head. > > > See the words "feel free to show how", Pointy Head. > > > Try to get it into your pointy little head, Poiny Head: > > > stating that something occurs is not *showing how* it occurs. > > > > Only cranks, kooks, crackpots and halfwits just gotta know how > > A simple, obvious thing like "matter waves"? Don't be stupider than > you have to, please. With such phenomena, if you can't show how, > your "theory" is worthless. This bullshit assertion is typical of the loony tunes crowd. Theories predict what will happen in a given experiment. It doesn't tell you "why" it happens. It COULD explain it in terms of other phenomena, but those phenomena don't have "why" in them. Or it's just an endless regression. > But then you're the blundering lackwit who thinks I'm unaware of > the strength of the gravitational force. Tell me: how often does > your keeper have to remind you to breathe? Personal attack is not an argument for why you believe gravity is strong enough to cause diffraction. So your "theory" doesn't have a "why" either. What I see here is hypocrisy. > Yer should'a taken a look at my theory: frequency and wavelength are > defined much more elegantly and rationally than de Broglie did it. > And my definitions are explicatory too. > > ----idiot burble snipped---- I think you have described your "theory" quite well :-) Frequency and wavelength are already defined. You don't have the option to redefine them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvjbk1.ci0.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395216 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned "the idiot" Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > See the invitation above, Pointy Head. > > > > See the words "feel free to show how", Pointy Head. > > > > Try to get it into your pointy little head, Poiny Head: > > > > stating that something occurs is not *showing how* it occurs. > > > > > > Only cranks, kooks, crackpots and halfwits just gotta know how > > > > A simple, obvious thing like "matter waves"? Don't be stupider than > > you have to, please. With such phenomena, if you can't show how, > > your "theory" is worthless. > > This bullshit assertion is typical of the loony tunes crowd. Wrong again, Pointy Head. It depends on the phenomenon. ----snip---- > > But then you're the blundering lackwit who thinks I'm unaware of > > the strength of the gravitational force. Tell me: how often does > > your keeper have to remind you to breathe? > > Personal attack is not an argument I never said or implies that it is, Pointy Head. > for why you believe gravity is > strong enough to cause diffraction. That's stated in the theory, too. You should get yourself into a remedial English course. > So your "theory" doesn't have > a "why" either. For that phenomenon, no. But that's not the phenomenon I spoke of. Nor is it in the class of phenomenon that I spoke of. > What I see here is hypocrisy. Wrong again, bubblehead. You're too blind to see. > > Yer should'a taken a look at my theory: frequency and wavelength are > > defined much more elegantly and rationally than de Broglie did it. > > And my definitions are explicatory too. > > > > ----idiot burble snipped---- > > I think you have described your "theory" quite well :-) > > Frequency and wavelength are already defined. Ill-defined. De Broglie used momentum and Planck's constant, neither of which is relevant. > You don't have the option to redefine them. Wrong again, meathead. You don't have any say in what I do. Ever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df7fa9d4-0c74-4d49-8b01-239397656778@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395234 |
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 8:42:20 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > A simple, obvious thing like "matter waves"? Don't be stupider than > > > you have to, please. With such phenomena, if you can't show how, > > > your "theory" is worthless. > > > > This bullshit assertion is typical of the loony tunes crowd. > > Wrong again, Pointy Head. It depends on the phenomenon. It certainly doesn't depend on name-calling. So what "phenomenon" has a rock-solid "explanation"? > ----snip---- > > > > But then you're the blundering lackwit who thinks I'm unaware of > > > the strength of the gravitational force. Tell me: how often does > > > your keeper have to remind you to breathe? > > > > Personal attack is not an argument > > I never said or implies that it is, Pointy Head. Of COURSE you are implying that, and more. Dishonesty is unbecoming of decent human beings. > > for why you believe gravity is > > strong enough to cause diffraction. > > That's stated in the theory, too. You should get yourself into a > remedial English course. Humor me, state it again. > > So your "theory" doesn't have > > a "why" either. > > For that phenomenon, no. But that's not the phenomenon I spoke of. > Nor is it in the class of phenomenon that I spoke of. > > > What I see here is hypocrisy. > > Wrong again, bubblehead. You're too blind to see. Why don't you help me see, then? > > > Yer should'a taken a look at my theory: frequency and wavelength are > > > defined much more elegantly and rationally than de Broglie did it. > > > And my definitions are explicatory too. > > > > > > ----idiot burble snipped---- > > > > I think you have described your "theory" quite well :-) > > > > Frequency and wavelength are already defined. > > Ill-defined. De Broglie used momentum and Planck's constant, neither > of which is relevant. Au contraire. Experiment confirms its relevancy. "Frequency" is what my counter measures. "Wavelength" is what my slotted line measures. It's as simple as that. > > You don't have the option to redefine them. > > Wrong again, meathead. You don't have any say in what I do. Ever. I certainly have a say about what you post in this forum, and I will do so: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html "17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain 'why' they occur, or fails to provide a 'mechanism'." "37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions" And then there is your, shall we say, adversarial attitude: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ "1. ad hominem — Latin for 'to the man,' attacking the arguer and not the argument" So when you do this, it is a red flag that you are spewing baloney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 12:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvkep2.tc7.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395256 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > A simple, obvious thing like "matter waves"? Don't be stupider than > > > > you have to, please. With such phenomena, if you can't show how, > > > > your "theory" is worthless. > > > > > > This bullshit assertion is typical of the loony tunes crowd. > > > > Wrong again, Pointy Head. It depends on the phenomenon. > > It certainly doesn't depend on name-calling. I never said or implied that it doesa. moron. > So what "phenomenon" has a rock-solid "explanation"? Who said "rock-solid exlanation", moron? ----snip---- > > > Personal attack is not an argument > > > > I never said or implies that it is, Pointy Head. > > Of COURSE you are implying that, and more. Wrong again, noron. > Dishonesty is unbecoming of decent human beings. So you're indecent. Tell me something new. > > > for why you believe gravity is strong enough to cause diffraction. > > > > That's stated in the theory, too. You should get yourself into a > > remedial English course. > > Humor me, state it again. As I said, it's stated in the theory. You wanna see it? Look. ----snip---- > > > What I see here is hypocrisy. > > > > Wrong again, bubblehead. You're too blind to see. > > Why don't you help me see, then? 'Coz you're *wilfully* blind. ----snip---- > > > Frequency and wavelength are already defined. > > > > Ill-defined. De Broglie used momentum and Planck's constant, neither > > of which is relevant. > > Au contraire. Experiment confirms its relevancy. Bullsahit. > "Frequency" is what my counter measures. "Wavelength" is what my > slotted line measures. It's as simple as that. Doesn't make either momentum or Planck's constant relevant to matter "waves". > > > You don't have the option to redefine them. > > > > Wrong again, meathead. You don't have any say in what I do. Ever. > > I certainly have a say about what you post in this forum, I didn't say or imply that you don't, Pointy Head. Learn some English, you ignorant cretin. ----lying and posturing snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 06:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8cee105-e955-4e9d-959f-e9f1046e7a1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395260 |
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:42:20 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A simple, obvious thing like "matter waves"? Don't be stupider than > > > > > you have to, please. With such phenomena, if you can't show how, > > > > > your "theory" is worthless. > > > > > > > > This bullshit assertion is typical of the loony tunes crowd. > > > > > > Wrong again, Pointy Head. It depends on the phenomenon. > > > > It certainly doesn't depend on name-calling. > > I never said or implied that it doesa. moron. Your behavior says otherwise. > > So what "phenomenon" has a rock-solid "explanation"? > > Who said "rock-solid exlanation", moron? So you can't come up with one. > ----snip---- > > > > > Personal attack is not an argument > > > > > > I never said or implies that it is, Pointy Head. > > > > Of COURSE you are implying that, and more. > > Wrong again, noron. Nope. You are in denial of what your behavior says about you. > > Dishonesty is unbecoming of decent human beings. > > So you're indecent. Tell me something new. I have been honest in discussing physics. > > > > for why you believe gravity is strong enough to cause diffraction. > > > > > > That's stated in the theory, too. You should get yourself into a > > > remedial English course. > > > > Humor me, state it again. > > As I said, it's stated in the theory. > You wanna see it? Look. So you are afraid to bring it out into the light of this forum? > ----snip---- > > > > > What I see here is hypocrisy. > > > > > > Wrong again, bubblehead. You're too blind to see. > > > > Why don't you help me see, then? > > 'Coz you're *wilfully* blind. I see and accept reality. > ----snip---- > > > > > Frequency and wavelength are already defined. > > > > > > Ill-defined. De Broglie used momentum and Planck's constant, neither > > > of which is relevant. > > > > Au contraire. Experiment confirms its relevancy. > > Bullsahit. Denial of reality is a hallmark of crackpots. > > "Frequency" is what my counter measures. "Wavelength" is what my > > slotted line measures. It's as simple as that. > > Doesn't make either momentum or Planck's constant relevant to > matter "waves". Experimental evidence confirms that matter has wavelength: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave > > > > You don't have the option to redefine them. > > > > > > Wrong again, meathead. You don't have any say in what I do. Ever. > > > > I certainly have a say about what you post in this forum, > > I didn't say or imply that you don't, Pointy Head. > Learn some English, you ignorant cretin. Sure you did. You seem to be oblivious. > ----lying and posturing snipped---- See? You believe truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” -- Isaiah 5:20 "It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved." -- Galileo Galilei
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 20:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvlaen.8td.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395262 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > A simple, obvious thing like "matter waves"? Don't be stupider than > > > > > > you have to, please. With such phenomena, if you can't show how, > > > > > > your "theory" is worthless. > > > > > > > > > > This bullshit assertion is typical of the loony tunes crowd. > > > > > > > > Wrong again, Pointy Head. It depends on the phenomenon. > > > > > > It certainly doesn't depend on name-calling. > > > > I never said or implied that it does. moron. > > Your behavior says otherwise. Wrong. > > > So what "phenomenon" has a rock-solid "explanation"? > > > > Who said "rock-solid exlanation", moron? > > So you can't come up with one. Learn some English. > > > > > Personal attack is not an argument > > > > > > > > I never said or implies that it is, Pointy Head. > > > > > > Of COURSE you are implying that, and more. > > > > Wrong again, noron. > > Nope. You are in denial of what your behavior says about you. Quit the projecting. It was you that started it. > > > Dishonesty is unbecoming of decent human beings. > > > > So you're indecent. Tell me something new. > > I have been honest in discussing physics. Dishonest in your accusations. > > > > > for why you believe gravity is strong enough to cause diffraction. > > > > > > > > That's stated in the theory, too. You should get yourself into a > > > > remedial English course. > > > > > > Humor me, state it again. > > > > As I said, it's stated in the theory. > > You wanna see it? Look. > > So you are afraid to bring it out into the light of this forum? Oh, all right. Since you insist: a re-release of copies of the Particle Theory series. The parts are called P1: The Particle Theory of Matter P2: The Particle Model of Light P3: Suggestions for Research And, of course, if you have sufficient intelligence to click on the right links, you can access the originals at http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham > > > > > What I see here is hypocrisy. > > > > > > > > Wrong again, bubblehead. You're too blind to see. > > > > > > Why don't you help me see, then? > > > > 'Coz you're *wilfully* blind. > > I see and accept reality. Mot all of it. And some of what you miss is missed wilfully. (Note, you bumbling idiot, that I do not say deliberately.) ----more ifiot dr4ibble snipped---- > > > > > You don't have the option to redefine them. > > > > > > > > Wrong again, meathead. You don't have any say in what I do. Ever. > > > > > > I certainly have a say about what you post in this forum, > > > > I didn't say or imply that you don't, Pointy Head. > > Learn some English, you ignorant cretin. > > Sure you did. You seem to be oblivious. Wrong again, moron. Get yourself into a remedial English class. Ask the nice lady to explain to you the difference between the concepts expressed in "have a say in" something and "have a say about" something. ----lying and posturing snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8e0e0c6-5024-4bec-8008-cc0cc974ea4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395299 |
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 2:34:41 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Wrong again, Pointy Head. It depends on the phenomenon. > > > > > > > > It certainly doesn't depend on name-calling. > > > > > > I never said or implied that it does. moron. > > > > Your behavior says otherwise. > > Wrong. Nope. So where did the name-calling go? Too late, it's in the record. > > > > So what "phenomenon" has a rock-solid "explanation"? > > > > > > Who said "rock-solid exlanation", moron? > > > > So you can't come up with one. > > Learn some English. You apparently can't come up with a phenomenon that fits your criterion. Blustering doesn't help. > > > > > > Personal attack is not an argument > > > > > > > > > > I never said or implies that it is, Pointy Head. > > > > > > > > Of COURSE you are implying that, and more. > > > > > > Wrong again, noron. > > > > Nope. You are in denial of what your behavior says about you. > > Quit the projecting. It was you that started it. Nope. YOU are the one projecting. > > > > Dishonesty is unbecoming of decent human beings. > > > > > > So you're indecent. Tell me something new. > > > > I have been honest in discussing physics. > > Dishonest in your accusations. YOU are a poor judge of that. > > > > > > for why you believe gravity is strong enough to cause diffraction. > > > > > > > > > > That's stated in the theory, too. You should get yourself into a > > > > > remedial English course. > > > > > > > > Humor me, state it again. > > > > > > As I said, it's stated in the theory. > > > You wanna see it? Look. > > > > So you are afraid to bring it out into the light of this forum? > > Oh, all right. Since you insist: a re-release of copies of the > Particle Theory series. > > The parts are called > > P1: The Particle Theory of Matter > P2: The Particle Model of Light > P3: Suggestions for Research > > And, of course, if you have sufficient intelligence to > click on the right links, you can access the originals > at http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham “Your manuscript is both good and original. However, that which is good is not original, and that which is original is not good.” -- Samuel Johnson > > > > > > What I see here is hypocrisy. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong again, bubblehead. You're too blind to see. > > > > > > > > Why don't you help me see, then? > > > > > > 'Coz you're *wilfully* blind. > > > > I see and accept reality. > > Mot all of it. And some of what you miss is missed wilfully. > (Note, you bumbling idiot, that I do not say deliberately.) Sounds like the same thing to me, dishonest name-caller. > > > > I certainly have a say about what you post in this forum, > > > > > > I didn't say or imply that you don't, Pointy Head. > > > Learn some English, you ignorant cretin. > > > > Sure you did. You seem to be oblivious. > > Wrong again, moron. Get yourself into a remedial English class. > Ask the nice lady to explain to you the difference between the > concepts expressed in "have a say in" something and "have a > say about" something. > > ----lying and posturing snipped---- I'm glad you snipped your lying and posturing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvm1mm.hli.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395314 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: ----snip---- > > > I see and accept reality. > > > > Mot all of it. And some of what you miss is missed wilfully. > > (Note, you bumbling idiot, that I do not say deliberately.) > > Sounds like the same thing to me, "Deliberately" implies thought. Being the considerate being that I am, I wouldn't want to confuse you by using i; who knows, you might be idiot enough to think I think you think. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 03:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvm27s.hli.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395317 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: ----snip---- > > > I see and accept reality. > > > > Mot all of it. And some of what you miss is missed wilfully. > > (Note, you bumbling idiot, that I do not say deliberately.) > > Sounds like the same thing to me, "Deliberately" implies thought. Being the considerate being that I am, I wouldn't want to confuse you by using it; who knows, you might be idiot enough to think I think you think. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 04:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77e06fd2-b312-47b7-b30d-61e26d109e0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395317 |
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 9:11:27 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > I see and accept reality. > > > > > > Mot all of it. And some of what you miss is missed wilfully. > > > (Note, you bumbling idiot, that I do not say deliberately.) > > > > Sounds like the same thing to me, > > "Deliberately" implies thought. So does "willfully"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 14:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvn8ta.5u9.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395329 |
>ry Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: ----snip---- > > > I see and accept reality. > > > > Mot all of it. And some of what you miss is missed wilfully. > > (Note, you bumbling idiot, that I do not say deliberately.) > > Sounds like the same thing to me, "Deliberately" implies thought. Being the considerate being that I am, I wouldn't want to confuse you by using it; who knows, you might be idiot enough to think I think you think. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvm29r.hli.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395314 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: ----snip---- > > > I see and accept reality. > > > > Mot all of it. And some of what you miss is missed wilfully. > > (Note, you bumbling idiot, that I do not say deliberately.) > > Sounds like the same thing to me, "Deliberately" implies thought. Being the considerate being that I am, I wouldn't want to confuse you by using it; who knows, you might be idiot enough to think I think you think. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 02:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvjbos.ci0.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395216 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > See the invitation above, Pointy Head. > > > > See the words "feel free to show how", Pointy Head. > > > > Try to get it into your pointy little head, Poiny Head: > > > > stating that something occurs is not *showing how* it occurs. > > > > > > Only cranks, kooks, crackpots and halfwits just gotta know how > > > > A simple, obvious thing like "matter waves"? Don't be stupider than > > you have to, please. With such phenomena, if you can't show how, > > your "theory" is worthless. > > This bullshit assertion is typical of the loony tunes crowd. Wrong again, Pointy Head. It depends on the phenomenon. ----snip---- > > But then you're the blundering lackwit who thinks I'm unaware of > > the strength of the gravitational force. Tell me: how often does > > your keeper have to remind you to breathe? > > Personal attack is not an argument I never said or implies that it is, Pointy Head. > for why you believe gravity is > strong enough to cause diffraction. That's stated in the theory, too. You should get yourself into a remedial English course. > So your "theory" doesn't have > a "why" either. For that phenomenon, no. But that's not the phenomenon I spoke of. Nor is it in the class of phenomenon that I spoke of. > What I see here is hypocrisy. Wrong again, bubblehead. You're too blind to see. > > Yer should'a taken a look at my theory: frequency and wavelength are > > defined much more elegantly and rationally than de Broglie did it. > > And my definitions are explicatory too. > > > > ----idiot burble snipped---- > > I think you have described your "theory" quite well :-) > > Frequency and wavelength are already defined. Ill-defined. De Broglie used momentum and Planck's constant, neither of which is relevant. > You don't have the option to redefine them. Wrong again, meathead. You don't have any say in what I do. Ever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnveqh2.bv5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395065 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > > > > Did you really think that your inept babble would gain credibility > > > > with your removal of Bodkin's statement above? > > > > > > It stands on its own. > > > > So you're arguing that a particle model of light is not necessarily > > a ballistic model? > > You are beginning to see the light :-) Oh FFS. You actually think that's a witicism? > > Do feel free to elucidate. > > I have done so in more ways than one. Bullshit. ----snip---- > > > You must be OCD > > > > No. Despite your vicious wishes, I have permission to be otherwise. > > Having permission does not mean that you actually perform. Didn't say it does, moron. Learn to read. ===smip---- > > > > > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > > > > > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > > > > > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > > > > > That IS observation, ignorant one. > > > > Wrong. > > By what authority do you make such a ridiculous assertion? I don't argue from authority, Pointy Head. ----snip---- > > It's a wave-behaviour based interpretation of what was observed, > > It is not itself observation. > > Why do you believe your assertion makes any sense at all? "Wave-behavior" > is what waves do. Feel free to show how particles do it. > Maybe you should study up on "electron diffraction" > before you make such stupid claims. See? That's a wave-berhaviour interpretation of what was onserved. > > > How is it that you don't know basic experimental physics? > > > > What I don't know is the level of your gullibility when faced with > > argument from authority. > > My arguments are from experiments, not authority. Bullshit. ----snip---- > > > > > > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > > > > > > or you haven't understood it. > > > > > > > > > > Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > Your uncertainty on the matter makes your prehugiced agenda quite clear. > > > > > > Yes, I'm prejudiced against stupidity. > > > > Wrong again. You're infatuated with it. > > Yes, I'm like Carl Icahn: > > "Some people study artificial intelligence. I study natural stupidity." > -- Carl Icahn One day, if you try real hard, you just might climb to that height. Then Carl will study you. Whoopy do, huh? > > > "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do." > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > You'd have to be pretty old, Pointy Head, for Ben to have known you. > > I am :-) Went right over your head, huh? You really are a sad case, Pointy. > > BTW, do you think you could edit your pastes so that apostrophes > > show up as apostrophes? Or do you compose text as lazily and > > stupidly as you "think"? > > The quotes show up correctly in my post. It must be due to your > processer that is confused by reality, just like you are. You do like saying that things *must* be so, don't you. Typical true believer babble. Try to get this into your pointy little head, Pointy Head: other people's quotes show up fine. The problem isn't my "processor", it's your use of Google groups instead of a decent Usenet client. > > > > > > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > > > > > > > > > > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > > > > > > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > > > > > > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > > > > > > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > > > > > > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > > > > > > impacting a moving reflector. > > > > > > > > > > Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior > > > > > (e.g., the photoelectric effect), > > > > > and it also has wave-like behavior > > > > > (e.g., refraction, superposition). > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. Try addressing the point. > > > > > > I did. > > > > Wrong. The point is the flawed design of the experiment. > > Nope. You refuse to accept reality. Wrong. Iy's just that I try to encourage morons like you to improve themselves, and thus make reality more palatable. > Light can be thought of as particles, > but by the de Broglie relationship, it still has wave-like behavior. Or it > can be thought of as waves, but by the same relationship it still has > particle-like behavior. Irrelevant. Read the text above. This time try to engage your neuron. > Learn something about electrons which exhibit the > same behavior. Pffft. So do buckyballs. BFD. > > > Are you too stupid to recognize it? > > > > You clearly are. I recognize MUCH more about reality than you do. Your delusions aren't reality, Pointy Head. > For example, I recognize that anyone who claims "light is particles > and therefore obeys the ballistic theory" is stupider than dirt. But there *is* no-one stupider than you. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 12:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvf4rs.h9o.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395065 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > > > > Did you really think that your inept babble would gain credibility > > > > with your removal of Bodkin's statement above? > > > > > > It stands on its own. > > > > So you're arguing that a particle model of light is not necessarily > > a ballistic model? > > You are beginning to see the light :-) Oh FFS. You actually think that's a witicism? > > Do feel free to elucidate. > > I have done so in more ways than one. Bullshit. ----snip---- > > > You must be OCD > > > > No. Despite your vicious wishes, I have permission to be otherwise. > > Having permission does not mean that you actually perform. Didn't say it does, moron. Learn to read. ===smip---- > > > > > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > > > > > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > > > > > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > > > > > That IS observation, ignorant one. > > > > Wrong. > > By what authority do you make such a ridiculous assertion? I don't argue from authority, Pointy Head. ----snip---- > > It's a wave-behaviour based interpretation of what was observed, > > It is not itself observation. > Why do you believe your assertion makes any sense at all? "Wave-behavior" > is what waves do. Feel free to show how particles do it. > Maybe you should study up on "electron diffraction" > before you make such stupid claims. See? That's a wave-berhaviour interpretation of what was onserved. > > > How is it that you don't know basic experimental physics? > > > > What I don't know is the level of your gullibility when faced with > > argument from authority. > My arguments are from experiments, not authority. Bullshit. ----snip---- > > > > > > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > > > > > > or you haven't understood it. > > > > > > > > > > Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > Your uncertainty on the matter makes your prehugiced agenda quite clear. > > > > > > Yes, I'm prejudiced against stupidity. > > > > Wrong again. You're infatuated with it. > > Yes, I'm like Carl Icahn: > "Some people study artificial intelligence. I study natural stupidity." > -- Carl Icahn One day, if you try real hard, you just might climb to that height. Then Carl will study you. Whoopy do, huh? > > > "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do." > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > You'd have to be pretty old, Pointy Head, for Ben to have known you. > > I am :-) Went right over your head, huh? You really are a sad case, Pointy. > > BTW, do you think you could edit your pastes so that apostrophes > > show up as apostrophes? Or do you compose text as lazily and > > stupidly as you "think"? > > The quotes show up correctly in my post. It must be due to your > processer that is confused by reality, just like you are. You do like saying that things *must* be so, don't you. Typical true believer babble. Try to get this into your pointy little head, Pointy Head: other people's quotes show up fine. The problem isn't my "processor", it's your use of Google groups instead of a decent Usenet client. > > > > > > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > > > > > > > > > > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > > > > > > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > > > > > > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > > > > > > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > > > > > > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > > > > > > impacting a moving reflector. > > > > > > > > > > Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior > > > > > (e.g., the photoelectric effect), > > > > > and it also has wave-like behavior > > > > > (e.g., refraction, superposition). > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. Try addressing the point. > > > > > > I did. > > > > Wrong. The point is the flawed design of the experiment. > > Nope. You refuse to accept reality. Wrong. It's just that I try to encourage morons like you to improve themselves, and thus make reality more palatable. > Light can be thought of as > particles, but by the de Broglie relationship, it still has > wave-like behavior. Or it can be thought of as waves, but by > the same relationship it still has particle-like behavior. Irrelevant. Read the text above. This time try to engage your neuron. > Learn something about electrons which exhibit the same behavior. Pffft. So do buckyballs. BFD. > > > Are you too stupid to recognize it? > > > > You clearly are. > > I recognize MUCH more about reality than you do. Your delusions aren't reality, Pointy Head. > For example, I recognize that anyone who claims "light is particles > and therefore obeys the ballistic theory" is stupider than dirt. But there *is* no-one stupider than you. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 12:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvf527.h9o.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395065 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > > > > Did you really think that your inept babble would gain credibility > > > > with your removal of Bodkin's statement above? > > > > > > It stands on its own. > > > > So you're arguing that a particle model of light is not necessarily > > a ballistic model? > > You are beginning to see the light :-) Oh FFS. You actually think that's a witticism? > > Do feel free to elucidate. > > I have done so in more ways than one. Bullshit. ----snip---- > > > You must be OCD > > > > No. Despite your vicious wishes, I have permission to be otherwise. > > Having permission does not mean that you actually perform. Didn't say it does, moron. Learn to read. ===smip---- > > > > > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > > > > > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > > > > > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > > > > > That IS observation, ignorant one. > > > > Wrong. > > By what authority do you make such a ridiculous assertion? I don't argue from authority, Pointy Head. ----snip---- > > It's a wave-behaviour based interpretation of what was observed, > > It is not itself observation. > > Why do you believe your assertion makes any sense at all? "Wave-behavior" > is what waves do. Feel free to show how particles do it. > Maybe you should study up on "electron diffraction" > before you make such stupid claims. See? That's a wave-berhaviour interpretation of what was onserved. > > > How is it that you don't know basic experimental physics? > > > > What I don't know is the level of your gullibility when faced with > > argument from authority. > > My arguments are from experiments, not authority. Bullshit. ----snip---- > > > > > > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > > > > > > or you haven't understood it. > > > > > > > > > > Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > Your uncertainty on the matter makes your prehugiced agenda quite clear. > > > > > > Yes, I'm prejudiced against stupidity. > > > > Wrong again. You're infatuated with it. > > Yes, I'm like Carl Icahn: > > "Some people study artificial intelligence. I study natural stupidity." > -- Carl Icahn One day, if you try real hard, you just might climb to that height. Then Carl will study you. Whoopy do, huh? > > > "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do." > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > You'd have to be pretty old, Pointy Head, for Ben to have known you. > > I am :-) Went right over your head, huh? You really are a sad case, Pointy. > > BTW, do you think you could edit your pastes so that apostrophes > > show up as apostrophes? Or do you compose text as lazily and > > stupidly as you "think"? > > The quotes show up correctly in my post. It must be due to your > processer that is confused by reality, just like you are. You do like saying that things *must* be so, don't you. Typical true believer babble. Try to get this into your pointy little head, Pointy Head: other people's quotes show up fine. The problem isn't my "processor", it's your use of Google groups instead of a decent Usenet client. > > > > > > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > > > > > > > > > > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > > > > > > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > > > > > > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > > > > > > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > > > > > > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > > > > > > impacting a moving reflector. > > > > > > > > > > Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior > > > > > (e.g., the photoelectric effect), > > > > > and it also has wave-like behavior > > > > > (e.g., refraction, superposition). > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. Try addressing the point. > > > > > > I did. > > > > Wrong. The point is the flawed design of the experiment. > > Nope. You refuse to accept reality. Wrong. It's just that I try to encourage morons like you to improve themselves, and thus make reality more palatable. > Light can be thought of as > particles, but by the de Broglie relationship, it still has > wave-like behavior. Or it can be thought of as waves, but by > the same relationship it still has particle-like behavior. Irrelevant. Read the text above. This time try to engage your neuron. > Learn something about electrons which exhibit the same behavior. Pffft. So do buckyballs. BFD. > > > Are you too stupid to recognize it? > > > > You clearly are. > > I recognize MUCH more about reality than you do. Your delusions aren't reality, Pointy Head. > For example, I recognize that anyone who claims "light is particles > and therefore obeys the ballistic theory" is stupider than dirt. But there *is* no-one stupider than you. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 17:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4208267.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #394373 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > […] Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. They say it is a quantum > field. Cite evidence. F'up2 <news:sci.physics> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 04:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnurq31.vca.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394255 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > > What are some of the others you think have been piled up? > > > > Oh, for fuck's sake. Who can keep track of the febrile meanderings > > that pass for theory? > > YOU can, if you'd bother to read. You can't. Why expect Me to dop it. > > Light speed as a constant within a given medium. > > It's not. I know. > Doesn't exist as a postulate. Bullshit. > > Light speed as a limit (a different one in every medium). > > Verified by experiment. Bullshit. > Is this a problem? > > > Light speed as inversely proportional to the density of the medium. > > Such a law doesn't exist. Snell's Law. > > The curvilinear universe. > > Verified by experiment. Bullshit. > Is this a problem? > > > Mass as distorting the contimuum. > > Verified by experiment. Nullshit. > Is this a problem? > > > Time as a dimension of the continuum. > > > Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > > > > Time dilation. > > Verified by experiment. Bullshit. > Is this a problem? > > > Red shift as a measure of distance. > > Verified by experiment. Bullshit. > Is this a problem? > > > > The expanding universe. > > Verified by experiment. Bulshit. > Is this a problem? > > > The big bang. > > Verified by experiment. Bullshit. > Is this a problem? > > > The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory). > > That's a hypothesis, not a postulate. Hypothesis *is* postulation. Quit quibbling. > It's not panning out so well. So? I suppose I can take it off the list. Let's replace it with one I forgot to include: Strong and Weak nuclear forces. > > Other universes (FYI that's a contradiction in terms). > > This is why meanings of words get altered or refined. Your > understanding of "universe" as meaning "the collection of > everything that exists" is NOT the meaning of the word as > physicists use it. So who's the lazy fuck who couldn't ne vothered coining amk unambiguous word? > Are you interested in the meaning of the word as they use it, Nope. The postulate is nonsense. > or are you just going to dismiss that meaning as "just not > acceptable"? Nope. The postulate isa no9nsense. > > Tachyons and the tachyon "universe". > > That's a hypothesis. So? Hypothises *is* postulation. Quit the posruring. > > Particle entanglement (Schroedinger's cat) > > Verified by experiment. Bullshit. > Is this a problem? > > > Dark matter. > > That's a hypothesis. So? Hypothises *is* postulation. Quit the posruring. > > Dark energy. > > That's a hypothesis. So? Hypothises *is* postulation. Quit the posruring. > > > > Blah, blah, blah ..... > > > > > > I've had enough of pseudo-science. > > > > > > What do you think "pseudo-science" means? > > > > In part: processes that are alleged to be science but in fact > > do not follow scientifically valid procedures/methodology. > > OK, and so which of the above did not follow scientifically valid > procedures/methodology? And what in particular was the lapse? Take your pick. *All* of the work done since Bequerel's day is invalid, because it makes the unconfirmed assumption that the pattern of light produced by Young's experiment *is* the wave pattern it resenbles. And the "confirmations" you assert above are no such thing because the experiments and the interpretations are all based on the same assumption. ----sniop---- Med
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web