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 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 15:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Particle physics |
| Message-ID | <8bd1aa31-f10a-485f-8fbd-07dcdb63a99c@googlegroups.com> |
In particle physics, the existence of subatomic particles is justified using liquid hydrogen bubble tracks formed within a steel bubble chamber. An accelerated proton beam is incident to a metal target that collision produces the alleged subatomic particles, that have a mass, which propagate through the steel enclosure (more than a quarter inch thick), of the bubble chamber, to form bubble tracks in the liquid hydrogen but subatomic particles, that have a mass, cannot propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber without forming a hole, in the steel enclosure, resulting in the explosion of the liquid hydrogen within the bubble chamber. Rutherford's experiment is used to justify subatomic particles propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber but Rutherford's beta particles cannot propagate through a quarter inch thick steel plate. Muons are used to explain subatomic particles propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber but a muon is 200 time more massive than an electron yet an electron beam of an ach welder can cut and weld steel; consequently, Muons propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber would produce a hole and generate an enormous amount of thermodynamic energy that would result in the explosion of the liquid hydrogen.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 17:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6eWdnTsLdKugDUnKnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
On 9/10/16 9/10/16 5:26 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote: > [... complete nonsense] Essentially everything you said is wrong. You should LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write about it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 16:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa24d262-33a7-4ea6-bd0f-51835d7be0ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
Essentially everything you said is wrong. You should LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write about it. Tom Roberts _________________________________________________ Prove it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac2db6ce-e5bd-41de-afa4-d882ddeedaae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
Als0, I've complete QM and all the prerequisite what about you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 16:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fe4b40c-b7b9-4271-95d1-e4d0e42adb34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391993 |
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: > > Als0, I've complete QM and all the prerequisite what about you? All you have is a lying brain, troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nr27mj$lup$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
1) We have much more sophisticated detectors of subatomic particles than bubble chambers these days. 2) Why send a particle beam through the 1/4" thick steel sides of a bubble chamber when you can send it through the window designed to accept the beam? 3) Muons are extremely penetrating, they can go through solid rock for quite a distance. They locate neutrino detectors in mines a mile below ground to shield them from atmospheric muons. 4) Troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 17:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <646cfb0b-3d89-4d0b-990c-6243453b4c04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
2) Why send a particle beam through the 1/4" thick steel sides of a bubble chamber when you can send it through the window designed to accept the beam? 3) Muons are extremely penetrating, they can go through solid rock for quite a distance. They locate neutrino detectors in mines a mile below ground to shield them from atmospheric muons. _____________________________________________________________________ Essential a glass window produces the same problem since a particle beam composed of matter, will produce a hole in the glass or shatter the glass window. Again, a Muon is 200 times more massive than a electron yet an electron beam can cut an weld steel. Particle physics is a scientific hoax that has absolutely no scientific merit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0df72e1-84c6-4c8d-9069-74e0eccb4fee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392001 |
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 6:30:19 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: > > 2) Why send a particle beam through the 1/4" thick steel sides of a bubble > chamber when you can send it through the window designed to accept the > beam? > > 3) Muons are extremely penetrating, they can go through solid rock for > quite a distance. They locate neutrino detectors in mines a mile below > ground to shield them from atmospheric muons. > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > Essential a glass window produces the same problem since a particle beam > composed of matter, will produce a hole in the glass or shatter the glass > window. Shut up baloney-spewing troll. Do something useful with your life instead of your abysmally-stupid blather.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 04:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nr2m13$565$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392001 |
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes: >2) Why send a particle beam through the 1/4" thick steel sides of a bubble >chamber when you can send it through the window designed to accept the >beam? >3) Muons are extremely penetrating, they can go through solid rock for >quite a distance. They locate neutrino detectors in mines a mile below >ground to shield them from atmospheric muons. >_____________________________________________________________________ >Essential a glass window produces the same problem since a particle beam >composed of matter, will produce a hole in the glass or shatter the glass >window. When did I say the window was glass? By "window" I meant something that would be an opening that allowed the particles to pass but hold back the liquid hydrogen. Something transparent to the beam (beryllium?), or simply use the target of the primary beam to plug the hole, so it serves two purposes. >Again, a Muon is 200 times more massive than a electron yet an >electron beam can cut an weld steel. Particle physics is a scientific >hoax that has absolutely no scientific merit. Nobody is going to beam a beam strong enough to cut and weld steel at a particle detector, you only want to produce a few exotic particles at a time. Since muons are much more penetrating than electrons, it's obvious they must be interacting with matter much less than electrons do, and would be much worse at cutting and welding than electrons. I believe this is due to their increased mass, for a given energy they travel quite a bit slower than electrons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b00de360-76a5-450f-bdde-131b7efffc22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
Are you saying that the bubble chamber particle physics is invalid? Essential a glass window produces the same problem since a particle beam composed of matter, will produce a hole in the glass or shatter the glass window. Again, a Muon is 200 times more massive than a electron yet an electron beam can cut an weld steel; consequently, a Muon cannot propagate through 1800 meter of the earth crust to form a signal. The S mine detector is probability detecting radio active isotope that exist within the mine. Particle physics is a scientific hoax that has absolutely no scientific merit. What is the 27 km circumference vacuum tube for anyway since a magnet cannot accelerate a proton.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 05:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3k1npFr474U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392004 |
Am 11.09.2016 02:53, schrieb numbernumber1964@gmail.com: > Are you saying that the bubble chamber particle physics is invalid? Essential a glass window produces the same problem since a particle beam composed of matter, will produce a hole in the glass or shatter the glass window. Again, a Muon is 200 times more massive than a electron yet an electron beam can cut an weld steel; consequently, a Muon cannot propagate through 1800 meter of the earth crust to form a signal. The S mine detector is probability detecting radio active isotope that exist within the mine. Particle physics is a scientific hoax that has absolutely no scientific merit. What is the 27 km circumference vacuum tube for anyway since a magnet cannot accelerate a proton. > I personally think, that the idea of QM about tiny entities called 'particles' is mainly wrong. 'Particle' denotes certain identifiable aspects of open systems. E.g. 'wave crest' is identifiable and moves like something about the water. But the wave is not really a thing, since water is actually the thing and the waves are a feature of its surface. My favourite counter-example against the existence of particles is 'Growing Earth'. Since if the Earth (and all other celestial objects) would grow from within and would gain mass inside, then matter cannot be composed from tiny entities called 'particles'. Other examples would be: - creation of dust by 'electric' means - annihilation of matter without freed energy - transmutation without nuclear reactions I have actually developed a model, that works without particles. This idea I call 'structured spacetime'. https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 13:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4ecc6F6adjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392004 |
On 11/09/2016 10:53 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote: > Are you saying that the bubble chamber particle physics is invalid? > Essential a glass window produces the same problem since a particle > beam composed of matter, will produce a hole in the glass or shatter > the glass window. You have a flawed notion about particle penetration because you're extrapolating from your everyday experience of classical objects. When a particle passes unchanged through matter, it does so because it has not interacted with the matter. So there's no hole created. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8e00798-a913-474d-b4a4-622c1c095ae8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
Why are their not detailed paper and photographs regarding the interaction of the particle beam through the material that separates the particle beam with the detector. Show me a photo of the particle beam just before interacting with the target and experiment evident that the particle beam even exists. What is the purpose of the 27 radius vacuum tube of the particle accelerate in the first place since magnets but the accelerate the proton particle beam. I serious doubt that such is high energy beam could be made to propagate through this contraption. Also, where are the experiment photograph of the target after the interaction with the target beam? Also, an electron beam of an ach welder does not seem a reasonable entity to forms a beam since the ach welder's electron beam is not propagating in a straight line. Notice light also does not propagate on a straight path require in forming an electron beam. A mind is a terrible thing is be made into rice pudding with raisins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 12:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d00bdb80-890d-450c-a26d-2a8550f2e350@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
I personally think, that the idea of QM about tiny entities called 'particles' is mainly wrong. Heger _______________________________________________________ Great, you can reverse Lenard's photoelectric effect and win a Noble Prize. Praise, commendation, applause, salutes, honor, acclaim, cheers, approval, admiration, compliments, bouquets, kudos, adulation to my dear friend Sir Thomas Heger soon to be knighted by her Majesty the Queen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15cbcf6c-09e1-402a-a574-7b6c2aa15474@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
My favourite counter-example against the existence of particles is 'Growing Earth'. Since if the Earth (and all other celestial objects) would grow from within and would gain mass inside, then matter cannot be composed from tiny entities called 'particles'. ______________________________________________________________ Are you serious. You're calling me names and you have the audacity to make such lunar statements? Do you go to MIT? Come on the earth is growing. How on gods earth are you going to prove it. This kind of thinking is the result of abstract physics. The earth is growing. Ha Ha!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 20:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <696b3bb9-8898-4e16-ab4d-abfa29962694@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
Nobody is going to beam a beam strong enough to cut and weld steel at a particle detector, you only want to produce a few exotic particles at a time. Since muons are much more penetrating than electrons, it's obvious they must be interacting with matter much less than electrons do, and would be much worse at cutting and welding than electrons. I believe this is due to their increased mass, for a given energy they travel quite a bit slower than electrons. ___________________________________________________ It would be like saying a 68 pound midget would a better linebacker than a 449 pound monster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nreeev$etk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392395 |
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes: >Nobody is going to beam a beam strong enough to cut and weld steel at a >particle detector, you only want to produce a few exotic particles at a >time. Since muons are much more penetrating than electrons, it's obvious >they must be interacting with matter much less than electrons do, and >would be much worse at cutting and welding than electrons. I believe this >is due to their increased mass, for a given energy they travel quite a bit >slower than electrons. >___________________________________________________ >It would be like saying a 68 pound midget would a better linebacker than a 449 pound monster. No, you miss the point. The muon is moving much slower for a given energy, so it interacts much less with matter along the way, so it loses energy at a much lower rate. Therefore muons can penetrate rocks for quite a distance while electrons lose their energy very quickly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 14:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1a099d5-d3fa-4c0d-b76d-9fcce51f5cb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
A muon cannot penetrate 1 inch of steel; henceforth, a muon cannot penetrate 1,800 ft of rock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 17:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qZydndNlVP5tgkbKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392493 |
On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 4:43 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote: > A muon cannot penetrate 1 inch of steel; henceforth, a muon cannot penetrate > 1,800 ft of rock. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? Muons penetrate 1 inch of steel ALL THE TIME; ditto for 1,800 ft of rock (but fewer make it through). A few muons per second penetrate every square centimeter of your body, unless you are rather deep underground. The deep underground neutrino experiments still see occasional cosmic- ray muons (generated in the atmosphere). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrfo3i$5rq$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #392493 |
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes: >A muon cannot penetrate 1 inch of steel; henceforth, a muon cannot >penetrate 1,800 ft of rock. Reality disagrees with you. Remember, disagreeing with reality is being delusional. You may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon_tomography This is technology using the high penetrative power of muons to look into heavily shielded nuclear reactor cores (including assessing the damage at Fukushima), look for nuclear material in cargo, look for hidden chambers in the Pyramids of Egypt, etc. Much like X-ray CT scans but muons can penetrate where X-rays can't. Muons are much more penetrative than electrons because their high mass means less deflection by electric fields within matter, and that means less bremsstrahlung which means less loss of energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web