Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #466586 > unrolled thread

Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle

Started bymitchrae3323@gmail.com
First post2018-08-01 22:42 -0700
Last post2018-08-05 00:54 +0200
Articles 10 on this page of 30 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity


Contents

  Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-01 22:42 -0700
    Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 13:03 -0700
      Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 13:09 -0700
        Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 22:23 -0700
          Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-03 00:04 -0700
      Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ac> - 2018-08-02 22:55 +0000
        Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 21:35 -0700
        Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 15:00 +0200
          Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimdo.ap> - 2018-08-04 13:13 +0000
            Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 15:31 +0200
              Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimde.av> - 2018-08-04 13:41 +0000
                Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 16:39 +0200
                  Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Ecký Zcitná <ifmv@bsimde.bs> - 2018-08-04 16:21 +0000
                    Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-04 14:25 -0700
                      Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll> - 2018-08-04 21:32 +0000
                        Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-04 14:51 -0700
                          Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll> - 2018-08-04 22:56 +0000
                            Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-05 01:15 +0200
                              Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> - 2018-08-05 11:58 +0000
                                Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-05 15:06 +0200
                                Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-08-05 17:19 +0000
                                Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 14:22 -0700
                                  Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-05 21:30 +0000
                                    Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 19:21 -0700
                                      Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-06 11:37 +0000
                            Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-04 19:43 -0400
                              Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> - 2018-08-05 11:53 +0000
                            Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-04 22:05 -0700
                              Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll> - 2018-08-05 11:34 +0000
                        Re: Neutron's Solid Surfaces; Neutron stars obey Pauli Exclusion Principle Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-05 00:54 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]


#466970

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2018-08-05 17:19 +0000
Message-ID<n6oj3f-2cn.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#466942
In sci.physics Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
>>>> peoples "The word people means more than one person:
>>> 
>>> No idiot, it means a group of persons, which is singular. We are
>>> working
>>      ^^^^^
>>> in groups around here. Which would be plural. But a group is singular.
>>> As you clearly can see.
>> 
>> ROTFL.  You just can’t make that stuff up.
> 
> I read soemwhere, you pretending having a bachelor in computer science, 
> and not even knowing Logic operations on sets and groups?? 
> A _set of objects_ is SINGULAR, even in your fucking english, fool! 
> 
> This place is been hijacked by autistic imbeciles posing as wannabe 
> physicists. Sad, but true. I better leave.

Yet another babbling kook for the kill file.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#466992

Frompnalsing@gmail.com
Date2018-08-05 14:22 -0700
Message-ID<d99af16f-1b74-4ce6-bc5b-dc3c1bef6ab0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#466942
On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 4:58:13 AM UTC-7, the dimwit Tson Ylor wrote:

> This place is been hijacked by autistic imbeciles posing as wannabe 
> physicists. Sad, but true. I better leave.

... says the autistic imbecile posing as a wannabe physicist. But it is true, however... you should leave... although we all know you will nymshift again and reappear sometime soon... 

BTW, in your first sentence, you have conjugated the linking verb "be" incorrectly, which is no surprise since your English skills are woefully inadequate. Virtually no one who actually knows English would *ever* say 'is been'...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#466993

FromOwen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho>
Date2018-08-05 21:30 +0000
Message-ID<pk7qa4$c6r$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#466992
pnalsing wrote:

> BTW, in your first sentence, you have conjugated the linking verb "be"
> incorrectly, which is no surprise since your English skills are woefully
> inadequate. Virtually no one who actually knows English would *ever* say
> 'is been'...

And you know it, "virtually". Unaware what the term is standing for. Let 
me guess, a polish guy talking grammar and phrase morphology, in a place 
aimed for science. Go away, troll. You are talking vocabulary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#467019

Frompnalsing@gmail.com
Date2018-08-05 19:21 -0700
Message-ID<db5186c0-c402-4675-9b7d-1bfffb5b18b9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#466993
On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 2:30:50 PM UTC-7, Owen Scharff wrote:
> pnalsing wrote:
> 
> > BTW, in your first sentence, you have conjugated the linking verb "be"
> > incorrectly, which is no surprise since your English skills are woefully
> > inadequate. Virtually no one who actually knows English would *ever* say
> > 'is been'...
> 
> And you know it, "virtually". Unaware what the term is standing for. Let 
> me guess, a polish guy talking grammar and phrase morphology, in a place 
> aimed for science. Go away, troll. You are talking vocabulary.

Ah, I see you are already back, pretending to be yet another ignorant troll! How many is that now, 15 or 20? 30? More than that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#467045

FromOwen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho>
Date2018-08-06 11:37 +0000
Message-ID<pk9btk$nu8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#467019
pnalsing wrote:

> On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 2:30:50 PM UTC-7, Owen Scharff wrote:
>> pnalsing wrote:
>> 
>> > BTW, in your first sentence, you have conjugated the linking verb
>> > "be" incorrectly, which is no surprise since your English skills are
>> > woefully inadequate. Virtually no one who actually knows English
>> > would *ever* say 'is been'...
>> 
>> And you know it, "virtually". Unaware what the term is standing for.
>> Let me guess, a polish guy talking grammar and phrase morphology, in a
>> place aimed for science. Go away, troll. You are talking vocabulary.
> 
> Ah, I see you are already back, pretending to be yet another ignorant
> troll! How many is that now, 15 or 20? 30? More than that?

No, I am just pointing out your ignorance, in trying to play smart-ass, 
not even knowing what the term "virtually" stands for. Not to mention 
science and physics.

Unbelievable how many morons this group is attracting here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#466903

FromVolney <volney@volney.invalid>
Date2018-08-04 19:43 -0400
Message-ID<pk5dk7$hs9$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#466899
On 8/4/2018 6:56 PM, the nymshifting troll trolled as Tson Ylor:
> pnalsing wrote:
> 
>>> Just think, this is a forum for thinking. How is your "people"
>>> singular,
>>> when you say si plural, then? Peoples would be plural, but you have no
>>> plural. You are invalidated by your own lemma.
>>
>> Apparently, you can't read English either, and apparently do not really
>> understand the language...
>>
>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-people-peoples-and-
> peoples
>> "The word people means more than one person:
> 
> No idiot, it means a group of persons, which is singular. We are working
> in groups around here. Which would be plural. But a group is singular. As
> you clearly can see.

The nymshifting troll just gets stupider and stupider every time it 
shifts nyms. It seems to think Serbian grammar rules apply to English or 
something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#466941

FromTson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd>
Date2018-08-05 11:53 +0000
Message-ID<pk6ofm$e52$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#466903
the severe autistic fool Volney wrote:

>>> Apparently, you can't read English either, and apparently do not
>>> really understand the language...
>>> "The word people means more than one person:
>> 
>> No idiot, it means a group of persons, which is singular. We are
>> working in groups around here. Which would be plural. But a group is
>> singular. As you clearly can see.
> 
> The nymshifting troll just gets stupider and stupider every time it
> shifts nyms. It seems to think Serbian grammar rules apply to English or
> something.

This imbecile named "Volney", a homo name, is not knowing the basics and 
introductory, for instance in computing and mathematics a "set of objects" 
is SINGULAR. 

These autistic morons are not even knowing elementary Logic, as Boolean 
operations, rules, groups, sets etc, etc. How many autistic morons are 
there in here??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#466923

Frompnalsing@gmail.com
Date2018-08-04 22:05 -0700
Message-ID<edbcf64f-9e5e-41d3-9a20-822460bdc3dd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#466899
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 3:57:00 PM UTC-7, the dimwit Tson Ylor wrote:
> pnalsing wrote:
> 
> >> Just think, this is a forum for thinking. How is your "people"
> >> singular,
> >> when you say si plural, then? Peoples would be plural, but you have no
> >> plural. You are invalidated by your own lemma.
> > 
> > Apparently, you can't read English either, and apparently do not really
> > understand the language...
> > 
> > https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-people-peoples-and-
> peoples 
> > "The word people means more than one person:
> 
> No idiot, it means a group of persons, which is singular. We are working 
> in groups around here. Which would be plural. But a group is singular. As 
> you clearly can see.

You clearly don't have the brains of a lamp post. 

Keep up the good work, you are very entertaining and will always be good for a laugh.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#466936

FromTson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll>
Date2018-08-05 11:34 +0000
Message-ID<pk6nd3$e52$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#466923
the stupid uneducated troll pnalsing wrote:
> Dr. Tson Ylor wrote:
>> pnalsing wrote:
>> >> Just think, this is a forum for thinking. How is your "people"
>> >> singular,
>> >> when you say si plural, then? Peoples would be plural, but you have
>> >> no plural. You are invalidated by your own lemma.
>> > 
>> > Apparently, you can't read English either, and apparently do not
>> > really understand the language...
>> > 
>> > https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-people-peoples-
and-
>> peoples
>> > "The word people means more than one person:
>> 
>> No idiot, it means a group of persons, which is singular. We are
>> working in groups around here. Which would be plural. But a group is
>> singular. As you clearly can see.
> 
> You clearly don't have the brains of a lamp post.

You keep making a fool of yourself. Buy a brain, fool. In mathematics for 
instance a _set of objects_ represents also "more than one". But is still 
singular, fool. ANd take a look at your fucking english, before anything 
else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#466898

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2018-08-05 00:54 +0200
Message-ID<e58fef79-3e20-b444-0c0b-7d78c44a55a7@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#466890
The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Tson Ylor" <uo@srsysts.ll>:
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
> pnalsing wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 9:21:28 AM UTC-7, the dumbfuck Ecký
>> Zcitná wrote:
>>> This gnome of a pigEars can't even sense his english, that "all" is not
>>> plural, but singular alone. You just fell into the trap, pigEars. Just
>>> wonderful. It reveals how your brain is hard-wired.
>>
>> Your English is atrocious... 
>> Correct: All of the people clapped their hands.
>> (All refers to people, which is plural.)
> 
> Just think, this is a forum for thinking. How is your "people" singular, 
> when you say si plural, then? Peoples would be plural, but you have no 
> plural. You are invalidated by your own lemma.

LOL

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity


csiph-web