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 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 14:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnust4p.kqk.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394368 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > Again, try reading with your brain engaged. I said "the open > > question in the theory I presented". > > What theory are you talking about? Yours? Someone else's? Of course mine: *I* presented it. > > > then a) why is that open question important to > > > physicists? > > > > It's a physical theory. > > > > > and b) what makes you so sure that it's an open question > > > that hasn't been answered? > > > > There are two answers. Both are unsatisfactory. > > To WHOM? To me. > And if you, then why do you find them unsatisfactory? They rely, at bottom, on the assumption that Young's experiment definitively breaks the particle model of light. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 09:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nslt3o$1h7l$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394385 |
On 9/30/2016 9:20 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>> Again, try reading with your brain engaged. I said "the open >>> question in the theory I presented". >> >> What theory are you talking about? Yours? Someone else's? > > Of course mine: *I* presented it. > >>>> then a) why is that open question important to >>>> physicists? >>> >>> It's a physical theory. >>> >>>> and b) what makes you so sure that it's an open question >>>> that hasn't been answered? >>> >>> There are two answers. Both are unsatisfactory. >> >> To WHOM? > > To me. > >> And if you, then why do you find them unsatisfactory? > > They rely, at bottom, on the assumption that Young's experiment > definitively breaks the particle model of light. Where is your particle light theory that matches interference phenomena results as well as the other data that matches the quantum field model of light to twelve decimal places? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 17:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnut6q0.od5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394390 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> ----snip---- >> >>>> Again, try reading with your brain engaged. I said "the open >>>> question in the theory I presented". >>> >>> What theory are you talking about? Yours? Someone else's? >> >> Of course mine: *I* presented it. >> >>>>> then a) why is that open question important to >>>>> physicists? >>>> >>>> It's a physical theory. >>>> >>>>> and b) what makes you so sure that it's an open question >>>>> that hasn't been answered? >>>> >>>> There are two answers. Both are unsatisfactory. >>> >>> To WHOM? >> >> To me. >> >>> And if you, then why do you find them unsatisfactory? >> >> They rely, at bottom, on the assumption that Young's experiment >> definitively breaks the particle model of light. > > Where is your particle light theory that matches interference > phenomena .... One day, when (if ever) you learn to read effectively, you might finally get the difference vetween "wave interference phenomenon" and "phenomenon resembling wave interfrerence". ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsp4kr$2pg$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394404 |
On 9/30/2016 12:05 PM, Ned Latham wrote: >> Where is your particle light theory that matches interference >> > phenomena .... > One day, when (if ever) you learn to read effectively, you might > finally get the difference vetween "wave interference phenomenon" > and "phenomenon resembling wave interfrerence". In your "paper", you attribute diffraction to the gravitational pull between photons and the edge of the slit. You have in your paper a formula for the gravitational force, and you have a formula for the mass of a photon. So for the light of a HeNe laser, you should be able to calculate the bending of the light due to this gravitational force, to show that the width of the distribution matches the bending you claim. The frequency of a HeNe laser is known, and you can take any slit width you like to make your calculation. When you have your calculation and numbers, let's compare it with real observations. Notice by the way, that according to your theory of diffraction from a slit, because it is gravitational according to you, I should be able to run this experiment with the same laser and the same slit width and changing no dimensions but the material in which the slit is cut, say aluminum and lead. According to your theory, the lead slit should produce a stronger attraction and hence a wider diffraction pattern than the aluminum one. Have you tried that little experiment? You may be surprised at the results. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 02:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv0ss0.6lg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394524 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > Where is your particle light theory that matches interference > > > phenomena .... > > > > One day, when (if ever) you learn to read effectively, you might > > finally get the difference vetween "wave interference phenomenon" > > and "phenomenon resembling wave interfrerence". > > In your "paper", you attribute diffraction to the gravitational > pull between photons and the edge of the slit. > > You have in your paper a formula for the gravitational force, and you > have a formula for the mass of a photon. Isn't that clever of me? Now all the pgysicists have to do is collect some data for plugging into those equations. ----snip---- > Notice by the way, that according to your theory of diffraction from a > slit, because it is gravitational according to you, I should be able to > run this experiment with the same laser and the same slit width and > changing no dimensions but the material in which the slit is cut, say > aluminum and lead. According to your theory, the lead slit should > produce a stronger attraction and hence a wider diffraction pattern than > the aluminum one. Why is that? Are the electrons orbiting lead nuclei more massive than the electrons orbiting aluminium nuclei? ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 20:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6637a7e-eb81-49f8-acfe-e57337516e9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394557 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 8:40:05 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > Notice by the way, that according to your theory of diffraction from a > > slit, because it is gravitational according to you, I should be able to > > run this experiment with the same laser and the same slit width and > > changing no dimensions but the material in which the slit is cut, say > > aluminum and lead. According to your theory, the lead slit should > > produce a stronger attraction and hence a wider diffraction pattern than > > the aluminum one. > > Why is that? Are the electrons orbiting lead nuclei more massive than > the electrons orbiting aluminium nuclei? No, but the nuclei of lead are more massive than those of aluminum. How is it that you don't know this? Or is your question a sorry attempt to deflect from the fact that such an experiment would falsify your so-called theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 05:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv16nd.er1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394559 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > Notice by the way, that according to your theory of diffraction from a > > > slit, because it is gravitational according to you, I should be able to > > > run this experiment with the same laser and the same slit width and > > > changing no dimensions but the material in which the slit is cut, say > > > aluminum and lead. According to your theory, the lead slit should > > > produce a stronger attraction and hence a wider diffraction pattern than > > > the aluminum one. > > > > Why is that? Are the electrons orbiting lead nuclei more massive than > > the electrons orbiting aluminium nuclei? > > No, but the nuclei of lead are more massive than those of aluminum. And in both cases they are far, far away from the photons grazing the electrons in the atoms' outer orbits. But closer to the Al nucleus than to the Pb nucleus. Ooooo. > How is it that you don't know this? Or is your question a sorry attempt to > deflect from the fact that such an experiment would falsify your so-called > theory? Larf. Start your brain up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 04:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b971e44f-fee1-4d26-9b48-7791240eb802@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394562 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 11:28:18 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > Notice by the way, that according to your theory of diffraction from a > > > > slit, because it is gravitational according to you, I should be able to > > > > run this experiment with the same laser and the same slit width and > > > > changing no dimensions but the material in which the slit is cut, say > > > > aluminum and lead. According to your theory, the lead slit should > > > > produce a stronger attraction and hence a wider diffraction pattern than > > > > the aluminum one. > > > > > > Why is that? Are the electrons orbiting lead nuclei more massive than > > > the electrons orbiting aluminium nuclei? > > > > No, but the nuclei of lead are more massive than those of aluminum. > > And in both cases they are far, far away from the photons grazing the > electrons in the atoms' outer orbits. No, the nuclei are NOT "far, far away." They are about 2 Angstroms from the outer electrons. The wavelength of visible light is a few THOUSAND Angstroms, so the light greatly overlaps the nuclei. > But closer to the Al nucleus than to the Pb nucleus. Not much. Insignificant, in fact. > > How is it that you don't know this? Or is your question a sorry attempt to > > deflect from the fact that such an experiment would falsify your so-called > > theory? > > Larf. Start your brain up. This is good advice. When are YOU going to do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 12:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv1u3j.oqe.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394583 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Notice by the way, that according to your theory of diffraction > > > > > from a slit, because it is gravitational according to you, I > > > > > should be able to run this experiment with the same laser and > > > > > the same slit width and changing no dimensions but the material > > > > > in which the slit is cut, say aluminum and lead. According to > > > > > your theory, the lead slit should produce a stronger attraction > > > > > and hence a wider diffraction pattern than the aluminum one. > > > > > > > > Why is that? Are the electrons orbiting lead nuclei more massive > > > > than the electrons orbiting aluminium nuclei? > > > > > > No, but the nuclei of lead are more massive than those of aluminum. > > > > And in both cases they are far, far away from the photons grazing the > > electrons in the atoms' outer orbits. > > No, the nuclei are NOT "far, far away." Wrong. > They are about 2 Angstroms from > the outer electrons. The wavelength of visible light is a few THOUSAND > Angstroms, so the light greatly overlaps the nuclei. Tch. Let me relieve you of one of the elements of your confusion: the "wavelength" of light isn't the size of the photon. > > But closer to the Al nucleus than to the Pb nucleus. > > Not much. Insignificant, in fact. Wrong. > > > How is it that you don't know this? Or is your question a sorry > > > attempt to deflect from the fact that such an experiment would > > > falsify your so-called theory? You demonstrate above that you haven't read it. Either that or you haven't understood it (which, as even the slow boy can tell you, indicates a gob-smackingly low level of intelligence). You therefore don't have any basis for calling it "so-called". > > Larf. Start your brain up. > > This is good advice. So take it. > When are YOU going to do it? No prizes for second, Bozo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df6a6341-809b-4f3a-9d6a-779d3b9826cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394586 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 6:07:21 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > No, the nuclei are NOT "far, far away." > > Wrong. How can you dishonestly asset that when you have read the following: > > They are about 2 Angstroms from the outer electrons. The wavelength > > of visible light is a few THOUSAND Angstroms, so the light greatly > > overlaps the nuclei. > > Tch. Let me relieve you of one of the elements of your confusion: > the "wavelength" of light isn't the size of the photon. Oh, really? By what delusional belief do you assert that? > > > But closer to the Al nucleus than to the Pb nucleus. > > > > Not much. Insignificant, in fact. > > Wrong. Again you poop nonsense. > > > > How is it that you don't know this? Or is your question a sorry > > > > attempt to deflect from the fact that such an experiment would > > > > falsify your so-called theory? > > You demonstrate above that you haven't read it. Either that or you > haven't understood it (which, as even the slow boy can tell you, > indicates a gob-smackingly low level of intelligence). Don't be such a dishonest, abusive ignoramus. > You therefore don't have any basis for calling it "so-called". Sure I do. We've been over this long ago and I showed you that your "gravitational diffraction" baloney was wrong, yet here you are still trying to sell your dilapidated wares. You have no case, and name- calling does not turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv250s.s5q.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394591 |
Gary Harnagel wroteL > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > No, the nuclei are NOT "far, far away." > > > > Wrong. > > How can you dishonestly asset that when you have read the following: I can't. I can *honestly* assert it though. > > > They are about 2 Angstroms from the outer electrons. Keep the scale in mind, idiot. > > > The wavelength > > > of visible light is a few THOUSAND Angstroms, so the light greatly > > > overlaps the nuclei. > > > > Tch. Let me relieve you of one of the elements of your confusion: > > the "wavelength" of light isn't the size of the photon. > > Oh, really? Yes, really. Try to get it into your pointy little head, Piggy, when you're "criticising" some part of a theory, you need to keep *its* definitions of phenomena and their properties in mind. > By what delusional belief do you assert that? None. ----repetitive drivel snipped---- > > You demonstrate above that you haven't read it. And here you've demonstarted it again. Pretty fuckin' stupid, aincha. > > Either that or you > > haven't understood it (which, as even the slow boy can tell you, > > indicates a gob-smackingly low level of intelligence). > > Don't be such a dishonest, abusive ignoramus. As you? OK. > > You therefore don't have any basis for calling it "so-called". > > Sure I do. Wrong again. And not only that, it's clear that you don't have the wherewithal. > We've been over this That's "we went over this", dimwit. > long ago and I showed you that > your "gravitational diffraction" baloney was wrong, Nope. You omitted something from your so-called calculations. > yet here you are still trying to sell your dilapidated wares. Oh, how can you say such a thing? After all the trouble I went to to polish them up like new? Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame! > You have no case, Do too. I gave a pencil-case, and a suitcase, and erm, here on Usenet, I have you, a sad case. > and name-calling does not turn a sow's ear into au silk purse. Garn, Really? Shame about that, I actually thought that there'd be a chance of making something good out of you. I suppose fertilizer's a possibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35e8e8e8-48c0-4d3a-8bfc-d3c2bd4a689e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394598 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 8:05:22 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wroteL > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > No, the nuclei are NOT "far, far away." > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > How can you dishonestly asset that when you have read the following: > > I can't. I can *honestly* assert it though. I thought so: you can't read. > > > > They are about 2 Angstroms from the outer electrons. > > Keep the scale in mind, idiot. You're the idiot if you don't keep in mind that 4000 Angstroms is greater than 2 Angstroms. That's the only "scale" you need to consider. > > > > The wavelength of visible light is a few THOUSAND Angstroms, so the > > > > light greatly overlaps the nuclei. > > > > > > Tch. Let me relieve you of one of the elements of your confusion: > > > the "wavelength" of light isn't the size of the photon. > > > > Oh, really? > > Yes, really. Try to get it into your pointy little head, Piggy, when > you're "criticising" some part of a theory, you need to keep *its* > definitions of phenomena and their properties in mind. I have, YOU haven't. > > By what delusional belief do you assert that? > > None. > > ----repetitive drivel snipped---- > > > > You demonstrate above that you haven't read it. > > And here you've demonstarted it again. > Pretty fuckin' stupid, aincha. That does it. Not only are you stupid and dishonest, but you are a crude, yammerhead, too. > > Don't be such a dishonest, abusive ignoramus. > > As you? OK. You started it, retard. Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that empty cavity in your head. > > We've been over this > > That's "we went over this", dimwit. So you are incompetent in English as well as math and physics. Got it. > > long ago and I showed you that > > your "gravitational diffraction" baloney was wrong, > > Nope. You omitted something from your so-called calculations. Unfortunately, brains were omitted from your head. > > yet here you are still trying to sell your dilapidated wares. > > Oh, how can you say such a thing? After all the trouble I went > to to polish them up like new? > > Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame! > > > You have no case, > > Do too. I gave a pencil-case, and a suitcase, and erm, here on > Usenet, I have you, a sad case. > > > and name-calling does not turn a sow's ear into au silk purse. > > Garn, Really? Shame about that, I actually thought that there'd > be a chance of making something good out of you. > > I suppose fertilizer's a possibility. I suppose a rubber room is a requirement for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv2vpe.81o.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394600 |
Gary Harnagel wroteL > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > No, the nuclei are NOT "far, far away." > > > > Wrong. > > How can you dishonestly asset that when you have read the following: I can't. I can *honestly* assert it though. > > > They are about 2 Angstroms from the outer electrons. Keep the scale in mind, idiot. > > > The wavelength > > > of visible light is a few THOUSAND Angstroms, so the light greatly > > > overlaps the nuclei. > > > > Tch. Let me relieve you of one of the elements of your confusion: > > the "wavelength" of light isn't the size of the photon. > > Oh, really? Yes, really. Try to get it into your pointy little head, Piggy, when you're "criticising" some part of a theory, you need to keep *its* definitions of phenomena and their properties in mind. > By what delusional belief do you assert that? None. ----repetitive drivel snipped---- > > You demonstrate above that you haven't read it. And here you've demonstarted it again. Pretty fuckin' stupid, aincha. > > Either that or you > > haven't understood it (which, as even the slow boy can tell you, > > indicates a gob-smackingly low level of intelligence). > > Don't be such a dishonest, abusive ignoramus. As you? OK. > > You therefore don't have any basis for calling it "so-called". > > Sure I do. Wrong again. And not only that, it's clear that you don't have the wherewithal. > We've been over this That's "we went over this", dimwit. > long ago and I showed you that > your "gravitational diffraction" baloney was wrong, Nope. You omitted something from your so-called calculations. > yet here you are still trying to sell your dilapidated wares. Oh, how can you say such a thing? After all the trouble I went to to polish them up like new? Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame! > You have no case, Do too. I gave a pencil-case, and a suitcase, and erm, here on Usenet, I have you, a sad case. > and name-calling does not turn a sow's ear into au silk purse. Garn, Really? Shame about that, I actually thought that there'd be a chance of making something good out of you. I suppose fertilizer's a possibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv30ts.8r3.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394600 |
Gary Harnagel wroteL > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wroteL ----snip---- > > > Don't be such a dishonest, abusive ignoramus. > > > > As you? OK. > > You started it, That's a lie. You started it. See your message <5714921e-9188-4a8a-9f37-47cf7b76c0d6@googlegroups.com> dated 2015/09/12. Good luck finding *anything* from me to you before that message, you lying maggot. > retard. You misspelt "retired", retard. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb248aaf-71e1-433a-a344-9240b4812a2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394640 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:01:37 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wroteL > > > > You started it, > > That's a lie. You started it. See your message > <5714921e-9188-4a8a-9f37-47cf7b76c0d6@googlegroups.com> > dated 2015/09/12. Irrelevant. YOU started it by dissing Odd Bodkin. Bodkin has educated himself quite well, is honest and makes very few mistakes. > Good luck finding *anything* from me to you before that > message, you lying maggot. Talking to your miserable self again, I see. > > retard. > > You misspelt "retired", retard. So you're an old retired retard. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 01:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv3dep.cmi.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394642 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wroteL > > > > > > You started it, > > > > That's a lie. You started it. See your message > > <5714921e-9188-4a8a-9f37-47cf7b76c0d6@googlegroups.com> > > dated 2015/09/12. > > Irrelevant. YOU started it by dissing Odd Bodkin. You're wrong again, liar. I never start it. Between him and me, it was *he* who started it. See his message <locmln$ujn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2914/06/24. Good luck finding *anythong* from me to him before that date, you lying maggot. > Bodkin has educated himself quite well, > is honest and makes very few mistakes. You're wrong again, liar. As with you, he tells lies when he can't win his ego points with the truth. And his mistakes with me have been frequent. > > Good luck finding *anything* from me to you before that > > message, you lying maggot. > > Talking to your miserable self again, I see. Quit projecting, moron. > > > retard. > > > > You misspelt "retired", retard. > > So you're an old retired retard. Got it. You're wrong again. liar. You wouldn't get it if you had a fistful of hundreds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e2daac1-6f80-4566-8bc6-8b02e7d8eeae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394656 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 7:35:27 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Gary Harnagel wroteL > > > > > > > > You started it, > > > > > > That's a lie. You started it. See your message > > > <5714921e-9188-4a8a-9f37-47cf7b76c0d6@googlegroups.com> > > > dated 2015/09/12. > > > > Irrelevant. YOU started it by dissing Odd Bodkin. > > You're wrong again, liar. I never start it. Between > him and me, it was *he* who started it. See his message > <locmln$ujn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2914/06/24. THIS is where it started, dishonest weasel: You wrote: > > > We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, > > > physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. O.B. wrote: > > As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? And you replied: > However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? So YOU started it and you NEVER let up after that. > Good luck finding *anythong* from me to him before that > date, you lying maggot. I found it, dishonest adolescent. > > Bodkin has educated himself quite well, > > is honest and makes very few mistakes. > > You're wrong again, liar. See? You are fanatically prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with you. > As with you, he tells lies when he can't win his ego points with the > truth. I believe you are describing yourself. > And his mistakes with me have been frequent. This from someone who doesn't understand physics. > > > Good luck finding *anything* from me to you before that > > > message, you lying maggot. > > > > Talking to your miserable self again, I see. > > Quit projecting, moron. THAT is what YOU do/ > > > > retard. > > > > > > You misspelt "retired", retard. > > > > So you're an old retired retard. Got it. > > You're wrong again. liar. You wouldn't get it if you > had a fistful of hundreds. I'm just expressing my opinion of you based upon your posts and what you have said about yourself. So you don't even know the definition of lying. Also you can't do physics calculations and you don't understand physics theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv3lrp.had.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394659 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wroteL > > > > > > > > > > You started it, > > > > > > > > That's a lie. You started it. See your message > > > > <5714921e-9188-4a8a-9f37-47cf7b76c0d6@googlegroups.com> > > > > dated 2015/09/12. > > > > > > Irrelevant. YOU started it by dissing Odd Bodkin. > > > > You're wrong again, liar. I never start it. Between > > him and me, it was *he* who started it. See his message > > <locmln$ujn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2914/06/24. > > THIS is where it started, dishonest weasel: > > You wrote: > > > > We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, > > > > physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. > > O.B. wrote: > > > As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? > > And you replied: > > > However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? > So YOU started it and you NEVER let up after that. Wrong again, you lying maggot. Those posts are dated 2016/09/19, 2016/09/20 and 2015/09/20 respectively. Observe, you retarded bullshitter, that those dates are *after* the dates of the messages originating the animus. Get it into your pointy little head: you don't get a clean sheet just by entering a different thread. You and Odd Bodkin are known for your abusiveness. So suck it up, the pair of you. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 04:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2e2f9f9-6fa1-4a9b-a048-80448950db01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394660 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 9:58:55 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > You're wrong again, liar. I never start it. Between > > > him and me, it was *he* who started it. See his message > > > <locmln$ujn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2914/06/24. > > > > THIS is where it started, dishonest weasel: > > > > You wrote: > > > > > We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, > > > > > physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. > > > > O.B. wrote: > > > > As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? > > > > And you replied: > > > > > However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? > > So YOU started it and you NEVER let up after that. > > Wrong again, you lying maggot. Those posts are dated > 2016/09/19, 2016/09/20 and 2015/09/20 respectively. > > Observe, you retarded bullshitter, that those dates are > *after* the dates of the messages originating the animus. > Get it into your pointy little head: you don't get a clean > sheet just by entering a different thread. > > You and Odd Bodkin are known for your abusiveness. > So suck it up, the pair of you. > > ----snip---- It is IOTTMCO that you are dead wrong and a congenital liar. Suck it up yourself and acknowledge reality (which you obviously will NEVER do because you are basically a dishonest crank). Your insistence that gravitation is the cause of diffraction is ludicrous and your abject insistence on it after calculations demonstrated that it cannot be the case is proof that you are nothing but a crank with ASD/OCD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv4o9j.1c0.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394669 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wroteL > > > > > > > > > > You started it, > > > > > > > > That's a lie. You started it. See your message > > > > <5714921e-9188-4a8a-9f37-47cf7b76c0d6@googlegroups.com> > > > > dated 2015/09/12. > > > > > > Irrelevant. YOU started it by dissing Odd Bodkin. > > > > You're wrong again, liar. I never start it. Between > > him and me, it was *he* who started it. See his message > > <locmln$ujn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2014/06/24. > > THIS is where it started, dishonest weasel: > > You wrote: > > > > We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, > > > > physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. > > O.B. wrote: > > > As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? > > And you replied: > > > However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? > So YOU started it and you NEVER let up after that. Wrong again, you lying maggot. Those posts are dated 2016/09/19, 2016/09/20 and 2016/09/20 respectively. Observe, you retarded bullshitter, that those dates are *after* the dates of the messages originating the animus. Get it into your pointy little head: you don't get a clean sheet just by entering a different thread. You and Odd Bodkin are known for your abusiveness. So suck it up, the pair of you. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web