Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #367207 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-16 08:03 +1100 |
| Last post | 2015-10-17 19:37 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 08:03 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-15 21:38 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 20:20 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-16 16:49 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-16 18:19 -0400
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 17:03 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 15:18 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 00:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 18:07 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 20:48 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 00:53 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 19:08 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:21 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 20:20 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 11:42 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:24 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 20:16 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 06:57 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 19:24 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:34 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 20:22 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 11:54 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:02 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 08:59 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-19 17:58 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 03:44 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:08 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 08:57 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:43 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:39 -0500
was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:48 +1100
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:53 +0200
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 08:19 +0200
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 08:49 +0200
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:41 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-26 09:41 +1100
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:55 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:13 +1100
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:45 -0500
Re: was using Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 00:48 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 18:14 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 16:49 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 01:52 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:50 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:55 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:43 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 08:04 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:15 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 08:01 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-16 16:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-16 18:55 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 09:40 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:07 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 12:05 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 12:12 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:19 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:28 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 11:36 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:56 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 20:01 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:01 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:23 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 23:13 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 00:37 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 00:59 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-19 09:06 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:26 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 20:10 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:43 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:44 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 01:53 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:52 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 12:04 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 20:02 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 11:58 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:19 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:07 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 06:41 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-26 08:12 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 16:17 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 18:02 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 02:50 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-31 05:24 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 20:17 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:44 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-20 13:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:55 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 08:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-22 12:58 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 04:22 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 11:51 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-23 07:57 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 14:24 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 21:23 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 04:49 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-25 01:52 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 03:25 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-25 21:36 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-26 09:34 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-26 09:44 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 20:09 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-26 15:05 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:04 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-27 20:15 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-10-27 19:33 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-27 12:45 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-27 20:22 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 09:31 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 21:24 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-28 01:08 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 20:53 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 09:09 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 21:07 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 14:37 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-29 04:48 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 20:52 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 09:18 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 08:44 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 14:14 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 14:39 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:41 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:29 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 22:55 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 11:24 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-18 15:06 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:51 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> - 2015-10-19 16:37 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:50 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-19 17:33 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> - 2015-10-19 21:48 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:54 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:40 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:59 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:45 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 17:04 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:09 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 15:43 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:44 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 18:11 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 07:38 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 08:52 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:06 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-27 22:46 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 08:35 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 11:49 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 18:45 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 04:31 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:34 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-29 05:05 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 12:23 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 09:21 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:59 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 19:47 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 10:06 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-30 04:57 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 13:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 16:27 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:46 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-02 04:56 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:00 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-02 08:20 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:51 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-03 11:28 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-19 18:35 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-20 02:54 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:47 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-19 23:07 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:55 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-20 14:55 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-20 22:14 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 00:53 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 20:37 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 17:48 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 19:37 +1100
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 10:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0tclf$5gt$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368453 |
On 10/29/2015 3:47 AM, HGW wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:59:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: "I > know nothing about physics" > Henry, what do fabrications like this do for you? What do you get out of compulsive lying? Has it ever served you well? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 04:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n9n43bp7ctvfl5v54qn8gait0bo7d2tl61@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368468 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:06:24 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/29/2015 3:47 AM, HGW wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:59:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: "I >> know nothing about physics" >> > >Henry, what do fabrications like this do for you? What do you get out of >compulsive lying? Has it ever served you well? Bodkin, your crappy messages deserve such treatment. The good thing about 19th century physics is that it is still usable and correct. Most of post 1905 physics is a load of useless academic mathematical bulldust.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0to4d$43b$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368479 |
On 10/29/2015 12:57 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:06:24 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/29/2015 3:47 AM, HGW wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:59:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: "I >>> know nothing about physics" >>> >> >> Henry, what do fabrications like this do for you? What do you get out of >> compulsive lying? Has it ever served you well? > > Bodkin, your crappy messages deserve such treatment. The good thing about 19th > century physics is that it is still usable and correct. Most of post 1905 > physics is a load of useless academic mathematical bulldust. > Certainly true that a lot of 19th century physics is still usable in a broad set of applications. Not all applications, but a lot of them. Too bad you're not any good at either 19th century physics or more modern physics. You get elementary electrodynamics wrong, elementary mechanics wrong, elementary optics wrong, elementary thermodynamics wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 16:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jh8b3bpk0c5c082o8etc9i4qetlrtqsslf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368481 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:22:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Henry, what do fabrications like this do for you? What do you get out of >>> compulsive lying? Has it ever served you well? >> >> Bodkin, your crappy messages deserve such treatment. The good thing about 19th >> century physics is that it is still usable and correct. Most of post 1905 >> physics is a load of useless academic mathematical bulldust. >> > >Certainly true that a lot of 19th century physics is still usable in a >broad set of applications. Not all applications, but a lot of them. > >Too bad you're not any good at either 19th century physics or more >modern physics. You get elementary electrodynamics wrong, elementary >mechanics wrong, elementary optics wrong, elementary thermodynamics wrong. Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <782dneGkEqkDiqvLnZ2dnUU7-SudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368762 |
On 11/1/15 12:27 AM, HGW wrote: > > Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it > were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why. > Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who is neither a Henry, Henri, nor a Wilson, should read this paper: Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity > harmoniously co-exist. > Conclusions > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret > the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to > confront the startling ideas of special relativity. > Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble > relating measurements made by observers in different reference > frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels, > do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the > speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently > fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed. > Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas > that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In > particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a > system of observers that determine the same time for any given event. > Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of > the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply > correctly the Lorentz transformations. > Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel > student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual > experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity > are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to > recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to > have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. > Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an > event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of > measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given > reference frame, and understanding the relationship between > measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in > contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to > the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This > investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these > fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity > meaningful to students. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 04:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvjc3bd7fq4nnvf4f26mfl9g0bqnuddml8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368780 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:46:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/15 12:27 AM, HGW wrote: >> >> Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it >> were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why. >> > > > > > > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of > > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks > > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of > > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate > > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have > > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the > > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented > > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which > > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity > > harmoniously co-exist. > > > Conclusions > > > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that > > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the > > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of > > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are > > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining > > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret > > the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the > > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of > > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity > > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different > > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity > > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to > > confront the startling ideas of special relativity. > > > Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble > > relating measurements made by observers in different reference > > frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels, > > do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the > > speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently > > fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed. > > Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas > > that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In > > particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a > > system of observers that determine the same time for any given event. > > Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of > > the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply > > correctly the Lorentz transformations. > > > Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel > > student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual > > experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity > > are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to > > recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to > > have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. > > Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an > > event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of > > measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given > > reference frame, and understanding the relationship between > > measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in > > contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to > > the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This > > investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these > > fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity > > meaningful to students. On reading such nonsense, I really feel sorry for all dingleberries. The obvious reason for student confusion is that they can immediately recognize pure bullshit when they see it. For instance, any intelligent student who watched Brian Cox's TV documentary about relativity would have laughed his head off at his Light Clock explanation. I'm sure students have no trouble in understanding the true principle of relativity that even Galileo knew all about. It is only Einsteiniana they reject because it is obvious crap from start to finish and more like a comedy show that a part of science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 13:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8OadnZvPpr_2_KvLnZ2dnUU7-X0AAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368808 |
On 11/1/15 11:56 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:46:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/1/15 12:27 AM, HGW wrote: >>> >>> Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it >>> were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of >>> the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks >>> are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of >>> fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate >>> that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have >>> serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the >>> role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented >>> that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which >>> the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity >>> harmoniously co-exist. >> >>> Conclusions >> >>> This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that >>> students have with the definition of the time of an event and the >>> role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of >>> physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are >>> unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining >>> whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret >>> the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the >>> simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of >>> the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity >>> of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different >>> observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity >>> of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to >>> confront the startling ideas of special relativity. >> >>> Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble >>> relating measurements made by observers in different reference >>> frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels, >>> do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the >>> speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently >>> fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed. >>> Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas >>> that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In >>> particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a >>> system of observers that determine the same time for any given event. >>> Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of >>> the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply >>> correctly the Lorentz transformations. >> >>> Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel >>> student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual >>> experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity >>> are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to >>> recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to >>> have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. >>> Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an >>> event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of >>> measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given >>> reference frame, and understanding the relationship between >>> measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in >>> contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to >>> the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This >>> investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these >>> fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity >>> meaningful to students. > > On reading such nonsense, I really feel sorry for all dingleberries. The > obvious reason for student confusion is that they can immediately recognize > pure bullshit when they see it. For instance, any intelligent student who > watched Brian Cox's TV documentary about relativity would have laughed his head > off at his Light Clock explanation. > > I'm sure students have no trouble in understanding the true principle of > relativity that even Galileo knew all about. It is only Einsteiniana they > reject because it is obvious crap from start to finish and more like a comedy > show that a part of science. > How can Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who claims a DSc in his handle be so ignorant of one of the most fruitful tools in physics, relativity. And why so militant anti-science? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <pc0d3b1padg5e0qrauc55srpnj6qd7tvm5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368815 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:00:59 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/15 11:56 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:46:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/1/15 12:27 AM, HGW wrote: >>>> >>>> Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it >>>> were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why. >>> >>>> Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel >>>> student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual >>>> experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity >>>> are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to >>>> recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to >>>> have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. >>>> Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an >>>> event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of >>>> measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given >>>> reference frame, and understanding the relationship between >>>> measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in >>>> contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to >>>> the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This >>>> investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these >>>> fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity >>>> meaningful to students. >> >> On reading such nonsense, I really feel sorry for all dingleberries. The >> obvious reason for student confusion is that they can immediately recognize >> pure bullshit when they see it. For instance, any intelligent student who >> watched Brian Cox's TV documentary about relativity would have laughed his head >> off at his Light Clock explanation. >> >> I'm sure students have no trouble in understanding the true principle of >> relativity that even Galileo knew all about. It is only Einsteiniana they >> reject because it is obvious crap from start to finish and more like a comedy >> show that a part of science. >> > > How can Henry Wilson DSc., who claims a DSc in his handle be so > ignorant of one of the most fruitful tools in physics, relativity. And > why so militant anti-science? I accept TRUE relativity, not Einstein's fantasy version. Only people why don't know how to detect absolute rotation are anti-science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n17t90$p35$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368823 |
On 11/1/2015 3:20 PM, HGW wrote: > I accept TRUE relativity, not Einstein's fantasy version. Only people why don't > know how to detect absolute rotation are anti-science. I think this is hysterical. It's like Henry announcing that he's discovered how to find the corners of a sphere. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 11:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <qsvf3b543iq0tn3pi6ckl63rveldvgj780@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368873 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 08:51:16 -0600, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/2015 3:20 PM, HGW wrote: >> I accept TRUE relativity, not Einstein's fantasy version. Only people why don't >> know how to detect absolute rotation are anti-science. > >I think this is hysterical. It's like Henry announcing that he's >discovered how to find the corners of a sphere. Just paint a spot on each corner....That'll make you think...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a389947c-0589-4824-a02b-512a8ab0dd20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367549 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 3:54:14 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > Moron-y is wrong again. Henry is ALWAYS right. > Except, of course, when he calls himself Henry... because the whole world knows he is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 02:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n04act$g5l$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #367549 |
HGW <xxx@....> writes: >>No, Henry is correct (for once!). Henry describes how a van de Graff ... >> Do you have an aversion to learning anything? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it is you who has an aversion to learning anything, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, I have told you over and over and over again, Ralph, not to edit my quotes, Mr. Rabbidge. Ralph Rabbidge, you already know that whenever you edit my quotes, Ralph M. Rabbidge, you will get a response just like this one, Ralph, where I repeatedly use your real name, which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, over and over and over again, Ralph. Ralph M. Rabbidge, I know you hate it, Ralph, when I use your name, which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, when I respond to you, Ralph. Ralph, so why haven't you learned not to edit my quotes, Ralph? >No, why can't a solid be created in which a surplus charge exists throughout >and not just on the surface.? Have you heard of ball lightning? Ionized >air...and it doesn't explode. Ralph, that is theoretically possible, Ralph, however the substance must be a perfect insulator, Ralph, otherwise the charges will move and migrate to the surface, Mr. Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 09:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <klsa2btp1eboj0gu8801tqpavteaqlgp4u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367506 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:37:26 +0000 (UTC), Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> wrote: >HGW wrote: > >> Insulated spherical objects can be pumped with electrons by transfering >> high volftage charges to a collector inside the sphere where there is >> near zero potential according to Gauss's law. That is how the sphere >> ends up with a surplus of -ve charge. Since the potential is zero inside >> the sphere, all the surplus charge ends up on the outer surface. > >No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into a >conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is how >metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You cannot >charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a >dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal >is homogeneous and in balance, always. Do you have an aversion to learning anything?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n03t4d$gld$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367547 |
HGW wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:37:26 +0000 (UTC), Mitch Lacroix > <mitch@dont-email.me> > wrote: > >>HGW wrote: >> >>> Insulated spherical objects can be pumped with electrons by >>> transfering high volftage charges to a collector inside the sphere >>> where there is near zero potential according to Gauss's law. That is >>> how the sphere ends up with a surplus of -ve charge. Since the >>> potential is zero inside the sphere, all the surplus charge ends up on >>> the outer surface. >> >>No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into >>a conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is >>how metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You >>cannot charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a >>dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal >>is homogeneous and in balance, always. > > Do you have an aversion to learning anything? He, not you?? Man, you are severely uneducated (I'm trying to appear polite here). You cannot push electrons into a wire if no electrons are going out the other side. This is what in Math and Physics is known as potential. IE, you take a voltmeter and measure the wire at 5V. You move your probe 1 cm along same wire, the voltmeter will show the same 5V. You seems severely detoured. See for instance Nodal Analysis of Electric Circuits http://mathonweb.com/help/backgd5.htm You really should master this stuff, before indicting others learning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 11:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <f44b2blt0vto72307720bgfqj4b650n4ur@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367552 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:07:58 +0000 (UTC), Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> wrote: >HGW wrote: >>> >>>No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into >>>a conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is >>>how metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You >>>cannot charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a >>>dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal >>>is homogeneous and in balance, always. >> >> Do you have an aversion to learning anything? > >He, not you?? Man, you are severely uneducated (I'm trying to appear >polite here). You cannot push electrons into a wire if no electrons are >going out the other side. This is what in Math and Physics is known as >potential. IE, you take a voltmeter and measure the wire at 5V. You move >your probe 1 cm along same wire, the voltmeter will show the same 5V. You >seems severely detoured. See for instance > >Nodal Analysis of Electric Circuits >http://mathonweb.com/help/backgd5.htm > >You really should master this stuff, before indicting others learning. Then you are claiming that Van de Graff generators do not work....You had better apply for a Nobel prize in stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 14:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n05kkj$ans$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367566 |
HGW wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:07:58 +0000 (UTC), Scott Finnegan > <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> > wrote: > >>HGW wrote: >>>>No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron >>>>into a conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. >>>>This is how metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. >>>>You cannot charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you >>>>need a dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A >>>>conduction metal is homogeneous and in balance, always. >>> >>> Do you have an aversion to learning anything? >> >>He, not you?? Man, you are severely uneducated (I'm trying to appear >>polite here). You cannot push electrons into a wire if no electrons are >>going out the other side. This is what in Math and Physics is known as >>potential. IE, you take a voltmeter and measure the wire at 5V. You move >>your probe 1 cm along same wire, the voltmeter will show the same 5V. >>You seems severely detoured. See for instance >> >>Nodal Analysis of Electric Circuits >>http://mathonweb.com/help/backgd5.htm >> >>You really should master this stuff, before indicting others learning. > > Then you are claiming that Van de Graff generators do not work....You > had better apply for a Nobel prize in stupidity. Where did I or anybody claimed such that, you stupid kangaroo. You've been directed to learn about those things, ie Ia + Ib + Ic + I.. = 0 Run the indexes to infinity will still give zero, no accumulation of charges possible. Law of Nature. You've been fooled by that sphere, which is nothing but a simple electrode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 22:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n067b4$1m8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #367620 |
On 20.10.2015 16:55, Scott Finnegan wrote: >[] Troll! plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n06dve$7ud$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367652 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 20.10.2015 16:55, Scott Finnegan wrote: >>[] > Troll! plonk I took look back and can see is obvious that stupid troll must be you, saying Paul B. Andersen wrote: "Given a very large flat metal plate with excess positive charge." The above serves as a proof. Which must be the reason for that "plonk".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 00:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <958b775a-87b0-48a2-a4ec-b2087112ff47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367207 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:03:51 PM UTC-4, HGW wrote: > Does planet Earth have an overall electric potential? If not why not? > The Earth is estimated to have a capacity of about 1 farad. If it could be > charged to a high voltage, an object of like charge could be made to levitate > without expending much energy. > > If the moon has a residual charge, as one might expect, how would that affect > its orbit? If the Earth also had the same potential, the moon would be > repelled. If it had zero potential, the moon's charge would induce a potential > imbalance on Earth, and a current could be produced by connecting a wire from > one half to the other....free energy, like tidal. > > So I suggest we devise ways to pump electrons off the moon in great numbers in > order to make life a lot easier here on Earth. > > > Is that the best you can do? The voltage difference between the earth surface and our ionosphere is in the neighborhood of 500,000 volts with a natural capacitance of our atmosphere almost the same as a vacuum , 9 p Farad per meter , for a net of 1.5 Farad if memory serves. How much energy would this be if discharged? A 1 ohm resistor will discharge half that energy in 1 second if we we run with your number of 1 Farad. That makes it 500,000 volts at a current of 500,000 amps for 250 G watts for 1 second. Sounds like a lot but over 31,500,000 seconds , 1 year , it works out to 8 K watts. We could run 8 100 watt light bulbs for 1 year off the 1/2 the total energy of our ionosphere charge. That is zip nada zero in the big picture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 20:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <8cg12bhm09ehr944m71n9044ikvjqjtspv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367240 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:53:14 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:03:51 PM UTC-4, HGW wrote: >> Does planet Earth have an overall electric potential? If not why not? >> The Earth is estimated to have a capacity of about 1 farad. If it could be >> charged to a high voltage, an object of like charge could be made to levitate >> without expending much energy. >> >> If the moon has a residual charge, as one might expect, how would that affect >> its orbit? If the Earth also had the same potential, the moon would be >> repelled. If it had zero potential, the moon's charge would induce a potential >> imbalance on Earth, and a current could be produced by connecting a wire from >> one half to the other....free energy, like tidal. >> >> So I suggest we devise ways to pump electrons off the moon in great numbers in >> order to make life a lot easier here on Earth. >> >> >> Is that the best you can do? > >The voltage difference between the earth surface and our ionosphere is in the neighborhood of 500,000 volts with a natural capacitance of our atmosphere almost the same as a vacuum , 9 p Farad per meter , for a net of 1.5 Farad if memory serves. How much energy would this be if discharged? A 1 ohm resistor will discharge half that energy in 1 second if we we run with your number of 1 Farad. That makes it 500,000 volts at a current of 500,000 amps for 250 G watts for 1 second. Sounds like a lot but over 31,500,000 seconds , 1 year , it works out to 8 K watts. We could run 8 100 watt light bulbs for 1 year off the 1/2 the total energy of our >ionosphere charge. That is zip nada zero in the big picture. OK, now what happens to charge on a solid copper sphere. If electrons are continuously removed from the surface there is supposed to be zero field inside the outer shell meaning that all the removed electron must come from the surface. Might there be a way of distributing the shortage throughout the whole body? After all, that is virtually what happens in a doped silicon crystal. Doing that would presumably change its capacity enormously. This might be a way to store vast amounts of electrical energy. Graphite is a candidate for such a possibility and I know research is currently being done in that direction. Is that the best you can do?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web