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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns9hfr$849$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393681 |
On 9/24/2016 9:29 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, > colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You > *do* know about that, right? And you have your history wrong. When do you think the first collider came on line and at what facility was it? You seem to think this happened about 1935. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 02:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuh2j5.h3v.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393779 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, > > colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You > > *do* know about that, right? > > And you have your history wrong. When do you think the first > collider came on line and at what facility was it? You seem > to think this happened about 1935. 1932. They called them cyclotrons (superceded by synchrotrons around 1950), First working cyclotron was built at Berkeley, I think. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 08:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsb76k$jri$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393800 |
On 9/25/2016 9:39 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, >>> colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You >>> *do* know about that, right? >> >> And you have your history wrong. When do you think the first >> collider came on line and at what facility was it? You seem >> to think this happened about 1935. > > 1932. They called them cyclotrons (superceded by synchrotrons > around 1950), First working cyclotron was built at Berkeley, > I think. That's not a collider. You have your history wrong. > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuibp2.255.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393855 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, > > > > colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You > > > > *do* know about that, right? > > > > > > And you have your history wrong. When do you think the first > > > collider came on line and at what facility was it? You seem > > > to think this happened about 1935. > > > > 1932. They called them cyclotrons (superceded by synchrotrons > > around 1950), First working cyclotron was built at Berkeley, > > I think. > > That's not a collider. You have your history wrong. They did get used that way. The first cloud chamber observations were of particles emerging from collisions in cyclotrons. Med
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 09:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsbc77$tt5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393869 |
On 9/26/2016 9:22 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, >>>>> colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You >>>>> *do* know about that, right? >>>> >>>> And you have your history wrong. When do you think the first >>>> collider came on line and at what facility was it? You seem >>>> to think this happened about 1935. >>> >>> 1932. They called them cyclotrons (superceded by synchrotrons >>> around 1950), First working cyclotron was built at Berkeley, >>> I think. >> >> That's not a collider. You have your history wrong. > > They did get used that way. The first cloud chamber observations > were of particles emerging from collisions in cyclotrons. Idiot. Look up the term. The word collider does not mean any accelerator that produces collisions. If it helps, put "fixed-target vs. collider" in Google. Both involve collisions. > > Med > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuj5ir.cut.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393873 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, > > > > > > colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You > > > > > > *do* know about that, right? > > > > > > > > > > And you have your history wrong. When do you think the first > > > > > collider came on line and at what facility was it? You seem > > > > > to think this happened about 1935. > > > > > > > > 1932. They called them cyclotrons (superceded by synchrotrons > > > > around 1950), First working cyclotron was built at Berkeley, > > > > I think. > > > > > > That's not a collider. You have your history wrong. > > > > They did get used that way. The first cloud chamber observations > > were of particles emerging from collisions in cyclotrons. > > Idiot. Look up the term. The word collider does not mean any > accelerator that produces collisions. If it helps, put > "fixed-target vs. collider" in Google. Both involve collisions. It revealed my ignorance of the term "collider" as a technical term. Doesn't change the facts of cyclotronic collisions and cloud chamber observations. However, I also googled "cyclotron" and found that the particle speeds that they can achieve are limited to a few percent of c. While that's not fatal to the idea of testing the postulate, it does make observational precision mighty important. My source is high school physics, and I no longer have the text, but I'm thinking now that perhaps I've conflated a brief menttion of the cyclotron with a following discussion of the synchrotron. Duzzen madder, the assertion stands: speed and mass values are calculated from observed momenta using Einstein's mass equation, the calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the results are deemed confirmations of the postulate. And those deemings are flawed; circular reaasoning. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 06:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsdk63$pqp$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393919 |
On 9/26/2016 4:42 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, >>>>>>> colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You >>>>>>> *do* know about that, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> And you have your history wrong. When do you think the first >>>>>> collider came on line and at what facility was it? You seem >>>>>> to think this happened about 1935. >>>>> >>>>> 1932. They called them cyclotrons (superceded by synchrotrons >>>>> around 1950), First working cyclotron was built at Berkeley, >>>>> I think. >>>> >>>> That's not a collider. You have your history wrong. >>> >>> They did get used that way. The first cloud chamber observations >>> were of particles emerging from collisions in cyclotrons. >> >> Idiot. Look up the term. The word collider does not mean any >> accelerator that produces collisions. If it helps, put >> "fixed-target vs. collider" in Google. Both involve collisions. > > It revealed my ignorance of the term "collider" as a technical > term. Doesn't change the facts of cyclotronic collisions and > cloud chamber observations. OK. I'm not sure what your point is about cyclotrons. There is no "postulate of varying mass". Experimental particle physicists use invariant mass. If you'd like a recommended reading for particle physics and how invariant mass plays a role for them, I'd be happy to do that. > > However, I also googled "cyclotron" and found that the particle > speeds that they can achieve are limited to a few percent of > c. While that's not fatal to the idea of testing the postulate, > it does make observational precision mighty important. My > source is high school physics, and I no longer have the text, > but I'm thinking now that perhaps I've conflated a brief > menttion of the cyclotron with a following discussion of the > synchrotron. Yes, I think you certainly are. > > Duzzen madder, the assertion stands: speed and mass values are > calculated from observed momenta using Einstein's mass equation, Which "Einstein's mass equation" are you talking about? > the calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the > results are deemed confirmations of the postulate. > > And those deemings are flawed; circular reaasoning. I don't think you understand how experiment works. I think you believe that if you interpret an experiment by invoking a theory, then the experiment will automatically validate the theory. Uh.... no. > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 10:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnun8l8.25e.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393970 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > > Idiot. Look up the term. The word collider does not mean any > > > accelerator that produces collisions. If it helps, put > > > "fixed-target vs. collider" in Google. Both involve collisions. > > > > It revealed my ignorance of the term "collider" as a technical > > term. Doesn't change the facts of cyclotronic collisions and > > cloud chamber observations. > > OK. I'm not sure what your point is about cyclotrons. There isn't one, now. See the next paragraph (previous post). ----snip---- > > However, I also googled "cyclotron" and found that the particle > > speeds that they can achieve are limited to a few percent of > > c. While that's not fatal to the idea of testing the postulate, > > it does make observational precision mighty important. My > > source is high school physics, and I no longer have the text, > > but I'm thinking now that perhaps I've conflated a brief > > menttion of the cyclotron with a following discussion of the > > synchrotron. > > Yes, I think you certainly are. No. I think I *did*. If I did, I've stopped. > > Duzzen madder, the assertion stands: speed and mass values are > > calculated from observed momenta using Einstein's mass equation, > > Which "Einstein's mass equation" are you talking about? Relativistic mass. m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1- v^2/c^2) > > the calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the > > results are deemed confirmations of the postulate. > > > > And those deemings are flawed; circular reaasoning. > > I don't think you understand how experiment works. I think > you believe that if you interpret an experiment by invoking > a theory, then the experiment will automatically validate > the theory. Oh, boy. How the fuck do you get from my calling that nonsense "circular reasoning" to the idea that I believe that nonsense? > Uh.... no. That's what *I* said about it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 04:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a82fb273-1add-4606-a800-c0bfe5efd1a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394101 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Duzzen madder, the assertion stands: speed and mass values are > > > calculated from observed momenta using Einstein's mass equation, > > > > Which "Einstein's mass equation" are you talking about? > > Relativistic mass. > > m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1- v^2/c^2) "It is important to recognize clearly that the above concept [the above equation] is the result of a particular approach, or of a certain frame of mind, and does not necessarily imply any new and profound property of matter." -- R. B. Leighton, "Principles of Modern Physics” (1959), p. 36. That "frame of mind" is archaic in today's physics. Physicists don't assume that p = gamma*m0*v means that m = gamma*m0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 09:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsgiuu$1inv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394101 |
On 9/28/2016 5:59 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>> Idiot. Look up the term. The word collider does not mean any >>>> accelerator that produces collisions. If it helps, put >>>> "fixed-target vs. collider" in Google. Both involve collisions. >>> >>> It revealed my ignorance of the term "collider" as a technical >>> term. Doesn't change the facts of cyclotronic collisions and >>> cloud chamber observations. >> >> OK. I'm not sure what your point is about cyclotrons. > > There isn't one, now. See the next paragraph (previous post). > > ----snip---- > >>> However, I also googled "cyclotron" and found that the particle >>> speeds that they can achieve are limited to a few percent of >>> c. While that's not fatal to the idea of testing the postulate, >>> it does make observational precision mighty important. My >>> source is high school physics, and I no longer have the text, >>> but I'm thinking now that perhaps I've conflated a brief >>> menttion of the cyclotron with a following discussion of the >>> synchrotron. >> >> Yes, I think you certainly are. > > No. I think I *did*. If I did, I've stopped. > >>> Duzzen madder, the assertion stands: speed and mass values are >>> calculated from observed momenta using Einstein's mass equation, >> >> Which "Einstein's mass equation" are you talking about? > > Relativistic mass. > > m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1- v^2/c^2) And to whom do you attribute this formula? Here's something you may not have been aware of, much like you were not aware of the history of colliders: Albert Einstein: "It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m / (1 − v^2 / c^2) of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion." > >>> the calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the >>> results are deemed confirmations of the postulate. >>> >>> And those deemings are flawed; circular reaasoning. >> >> I don't think you understand how experiment works. I think >> you believe that if you interpret an experiment by invoking >> a theory, then the experiment will automatically validate >> the theory. > > Oh, boy. How the fuck do you get from my calling that nonsense > "circular reasoning" to the idea that I believe that nonsense? I didn't say you believe that nonsense. I said you believe that's how scientists operate. THAT belief is what is nonsense. That is NOT how experimental physics works. > >> Uh.... no. > > That's what *I* said about it! > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuo8k6.hqc.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394116 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > Duzzen madder, the assertion stands: speed and mass values are > > > > calculated from observed momenta using Einstein's mass equation, > > > > > > Which "Einstein's mass equation" are you talking about? > > > > Relativistic mass. > > > > m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2) > > And to whom do you attribute this formula? No-one. > Here's something you may not have been aware of, > much like you were not aware of the history of colliders: That's a very biased interpretation of an acknowledged confusion. > Albert Einstein: "It is not good to introduce the concept of the > mass M = m / (1 - v^2 / c^2) of a moving body for which no clear > definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass > concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is > better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of > a body in motion." Yair. "A body in motion" relative to what? > > > > the calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the > > > > results are deemed confirmations of the postulate. > > > > > > > > And those deemings are flawed; circular reaasoning. > > > > > > I don't think you understand how experiment works. I think > > > you believe that if you interpret an experiment by invoking > > > a theory, then the experiment will automatically validate > > > the theory. > > > > Oh, boy. How the fuck do you get from my calling that nonsense > > "circular reasoning" to the idea that I believe that nonsense? > > I didn't say you believe that nonsense. I said you believe that's how > scientists operate. No you did not. You said: "I don't think you understand how experiment works". > THAT belief is what is nonsense. WRT my opinion that physicists did use that process around six decades ago, that remains to be seen. > That is NOT how experimental physics works. That's what *I* said about it. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 16:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nshd2b$10m6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394160 |
On 9/28/2016 3:05 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>> Duzzen madder, the assertion stands: speed and mass values are >>>>> calculated from observed momenta using Einstein's mass equation, >>>> >>>> Which "Einstein's mass equation" are you talking about? >>> >>> Relativistic mass. >>> >>> m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2) >> >> And to whom do you attribute this formula? > > No-one. So when you called it "Einstein's mass equation" you weren't attributing it to Einstein? > >> Here's something you may not have been aware of, >> much like you were not aware of the history of colliders: > > That's a very biased interpretation of an acknowledged confusion. > >> Albert Einstein: "It is not good to introduce the concept of the >> mass M = m / (1 - v^2 / c^2) of a moving body for which no clear >> definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass >> concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is >> better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of >> a body in motion." > > Yair. "A body in motion" relative to what? For that, you should probably read the rest of the text surrounding that snippet. The purpose of the snippet was to correct your thinking that this was something that Einstein promoted. For related questions, you can read more of his stuff. > >>>>> the calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the >>>>> results are deemed confirmations of the postulate. >>>>> >>>>> And those deemings are flawed; circular reaasoning. >>>> >>>> I don't think you understand how experiment works. I think >>>> you believe that if you interpret an experiment by invoking >>>> a theory, then the experiment will automatically validate >>>> the theory. >>> >>> Oh, boy. How the fuck do you get from my calling that nonsense >>> "circular reasoning" to the idea that I believe that nonsense? >> >> I didn't say you believe that nonsense. I said you believe that's how >> scientists operate. > > No you did not. You said: "I don't think you understand how experiment > works". And I stand by that statement. > >> THAT belief is what is nonsense. > > WRT my opinion that physicists did use that process around six decades > ago, that remains to be seen. Your opinion is ill-informed. > >> That is NOT how experimental physics works. > > That's what *I* said about it. > > ----snip---- > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 12:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuq1b2.aft.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394179 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > > > And to whom do you attribute this formula? > > > > No-one. > > So when you called it "Einstein's mass equation" you weren't > attributing it to Einstein? Its origin, yes; my source, no. ----snip---- > > > > > > the calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the > > > > > > results are deemed confirmations of the postulate. > > > > > > > > > > > > And those deemings are flawed; circular reaasoning. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you understand how experiment works. I think > > > > > you believe that if you interpret an experiment by invoking > > > > > a theory, then the experiment will automatically validate > > > > > the theory. > > > > > > > > Oh, boy. How the fuck do you get from my calling that nonsense > > > > "circular reasoning" to the idea that I believe that nonsense? > > > > > > I didn't say you believe that nonsense. I said you believe that's > > > how scientists operate. > > > > No you did not. You said: "I don't think you understand how experiment > > works". > > And I stand by that statement. You have no basis for it. > > > THAT belief is what is nonsense. > > > > WRT my opinion that physicists did use that process around six decades > > ago, that remains to be seen. > > Your opinion is ill-informed. That remains to be seen. Med
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsjbj7$1q1t$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394245 |
On 9/29/2016 7:13 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>> m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2) >>>> >>>> And to whom do you attribute this formula? >>> >>> No-one. >> >> So when you called it "Einstein's mass equation" you weren't >> attributing it to Einstein? > > Its origin, yes; my source, no. So you attribute it to Einstein, even though I quoted where Einstein said this is not a concept that should be used? Are you thinking clearly? > > ----snip---- > >>>>>>> the calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the >>>>>>> results are deemed confirmations of the postulate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And those deemings are flawed; circular reaasoning. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think you understand how experiment works. I think >>>>>> you believe that if you interpret an experiment by invoking >>>>>> a theory, then the experiment will automatically validate >>>>>> the theory. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, boy. How the fuck do you get from my calling that nonsense >>>>> "circular reasoning" to the idea that I believe that nonsense? >>>> >>>> I didn't say you believe that nonsense. I said you believe that's >>>> how scientists operate. >>> >>> No you did not. You said: "I don't think you understand how experiment >>> works". >> >> And I stand by that statement. > > You have no basis for it. > >>>> THAT belief is what is nonsense. >>> >>> WRT my opinion that physicists did use that process around six decades >>> ago, that remains to be seen. >> >> Your opinion is ill-informed. > > That remains to be seen. > > Med > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 01:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnurgkt.vca.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394261 |
Odd Bodkin wrote in <nsjbj7$1q1t$3@gioia.aioe.org>: > On 9/29/2016 7:13 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > And to whom do you attribute this formula? > > > > > > > > No-one. > > > > > > So when you called it "Einstein's mass equation" you weren't > > > attributing it to Einstein? > > > > Its origin, yes; my source, no. > > So you attribute it to Einstein, even though I quoted where > Einstein said this is not a concept that should be used? Are > you thinking clearly? Clearly you are not. I used it *long before* you ever said anything to me about it. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 07:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsll2f$134p$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394311 |
On 9/29/2016 8:40 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote in <nsjbj7$1q1t$3@gioia.aioe.org>: >> On 9/29/2016 7:13 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> ----snip---- >>> >>>>>>> m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2) >>>>>> >>>>>> And to whom do you attribute this formula? >>>>> >>>>> No-one. >>>> >>>> So when you called it "Einstein's mass equation" you weren't >>>> attributing it to Einstein? >>> >>> Its origin, yes; my source, no. >> >> So you attribute it to Einstein, even though I quoted where >> Einstein said this is not a concept that should be used? Are >> you thinking clearly? > > Clearly you are not. I used it *long before* you ever said > anything to me about it. Yes, you did. Probably erroneously, since Einstein did not promote using this mass equation. > > ----snip---- > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 10:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IaCdnadETJxGfnbKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394101 |
On 9/28/16 9/28/16 - 5:59 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Relativistic mass. > m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1- v^2/c^2) But that is not mass, it is ENERGY (i.e. that is the time component of an object's 4-momentum, for an object with mass m[0] -- the "[0]" is redundant). There is an ambiguity in carrying terms like "mass" from Newtonian mechanics (NM) to relativity, because in NM there are several different equations that hold for mass, but the corresponding equations don't hold in relativity. The physics community has decided that mass is an intrinsic property of an object, representing "how much stuff is present" [#]. This necessarily means it is invariant. So the mass of an object is the norm of its 4-momentum. This _IS_ how the word is used today (even though some textbooks and popular writings use it differently). [#] Quote from my high-school physics book. This definition makes the relevant equations of NM parallel those of SR: NM (3-vectors) SR (4-vectors) -------------- -------------- p = m v P = m V f = dp/dt F = dP/d\tau f = m a (m constant) F = m A (m constant) Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuo9hh.hqc.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394125 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Relativistic mass. > > m[v] = m[0] / SQRT(1- v^2/c^2) > > But that is not mass, it is ENERGY (i.e. that is the time component > of an object's 4-momentum, for an object with mass m[0] -- the "[0]" > is redundant). Yes. I get it. Odd Bodkin gave me the momentum quibble days ago. > There is an ambiguity in carrying terms like "mass" from Newtonian > mechanics (NM) to relativity, because in NM there are several > different equations that hold for mass, but the corresponding > equations don't hold in relativity. > > The physics community has decided that mass is an intrinsic > property of an object, representing "how much stuff is present" > [#]. This necessarily means it is invariant. That has beem my position all along. > So the mass of an > object is the norm of its 4-momentum. This _IS_ how the word > is used today (even though some textbooks and popular writings > use it differently). Nothing like having it both ways, right? > [#] Quote from my high-school physics book. Good way of putting it simply. > This definition makes the relevant equations of NM parallel those of SR: > > NM (3-vectors) SR (4-vectors) > -------------- -------------- > p = m v P = m V > f = dp/dt F = dP/d\tau > f = m a (m constant) F = m A (m constant) And "\tau" is the converted t of d = SQRT(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + ct^2)? Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 20:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9PidnfRKC4t98nHKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394164 |
On 9/28/16 9/28/16 3:21 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> This definition makes the relevant equations of NM parallel those of SR: >> >> NM (3-vectors) SR (4-vectors) >> -------------- -------------- >> p = m v P = m V >> f = dp/dt F = dP/d\tau >> f = m a (m constant) F = m A (m constant) > > And "\tau" is the converted t of d = SQRT(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + ct^2)? \tau is the proper time of the object to which the equations are applied. Proper time of an object is the only invariant time there is, and one needs an invariant time for a time derivative of a 4-vector to be another 4-vector (as in the middle equation). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0320ebe0-2b47-4bc9-9140-0acd4460ec7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391989 |
What is the purpose of the 27 circumference vacuum tube, good looks? Kind of expensive good look device? Particle physics is a hoax that has not produce a single useful physical result except scribble on paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web