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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5n6a.ept.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394748 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicist DO NOT > > > > TODAY say light is a wave. > > > > There's your false position. > > > > You are full of it. You're projecting again. > See another post about quantum field theory and how > it applies to light. Straw man. This is a particle theory; not a quantum theory. ----snip---- I note your surreptitious snip of the rest of the post you've pretended to respond to. Can't you handle the ease with which I met your feeble challenge?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt0fqt$1531$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394757 |
On 10/3/2016 5:33 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>> It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicist DO NOT >>>>> TODAY say light is a wave. >>> >>> There's your false position. >>> >> >> You are full of it. > > You're projecting again. > >> See another post about quantum field theory and how >> it applies to light. > > Straw man. This is a particle theory; not a quantum theory. YOURS is, yes. Who cares? It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicists do not TODAY say light is a wave. > > ----snip---- > > I note your surreptitious snip of the rest of the post you've pretended > to respond to. Can't you handle the ease with which I met your feeble > challenge? > Oh, I know you're here just to beat your chest and challenge people to a verbal sparring match. You have no interest in the physics. You've said so yourself -- you don't have any hope of any gain from the little you've done, so you have no motive to do any better. Right? So the ONLY reason you're here is to holler "You can't make me swallow it!" and "Fire the ump!" just like a drunken sot on the third base line. You're the guy who stumbles into a biker bar and yells, "I can beat any two-bit chump in the house! Bring it on!" You're the punch-fuddled club boxer who's been knocked out too many times, but you're on your feet now, saying "I'm not down! I'm not down!" Your an Aussie crank with two much time on his hands and too much desperate craving for attention. And I'm just spooning it out for you, watching you crawl for it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 02:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv8qem.oet.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394811 |
Odd Bodkin wrote in <nt0fqt$1531$6@gioia.aioe.org>: > On 10/3/2016 5:33 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicist DO NOT > > > > > > TODAY say light is a wave. > > > > > > > > There's your false position. > > > > > > > > > > You are full of it. > > > > You're projecting again. > > > > > See another post about quantum field theory and how > > > it applies to light. > > > > Straw man. This is a particle theory; not a quantum theory. > > YOURS is, yes. Who cares? It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicists do > not TODAY say light is a wave. IUt remains an irr4elevancy: a straw man. > > I note your surreptitious snip of the rest of the post you've pretended > > to respond to. Can't you handle the ease with which I met your feeble > > challenge? > > Oh, I know you're here just to beat your chest and challenge people to a > verbal sparring match. That's a false statement. It's impossible to know what's not. And since you either know that and are therefore lying, or don't know that and have been lying about the extent of your knowledge, that makes it a lie. > You have no interest in the physics. And that too is a lie. > You've said > so yourself And that too is a lie. > -- you don't have any hope of any gain from the little you've done, And that's just prejudicial bullshit. > so you have no motive to do any better. And that's another lie. ----delusional dribble snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 06:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv968h.v7f.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394811 |
Odd Bodkin wrote in <nt0fqt$1531$6@gioia.aioe.org>: > On 10/3/2016 5:33 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicist DO NOT > > > > > > TODAY say light is a wave. > > > > > > > > There's your false position. > > > > > > > > > > You are full of it. > > > > You're projecting again. > > > > > See another post about quantum field theory and how > > > it applies to light. > > > > Straw man. This is a particle theory; not a quantum theory. > > YOURS is, yes. Who cares? It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicists do > not TODAY say light is a wave. It remains an irrelevancy: a straw man. > > I note your surreptitious snip of the rest of the post you've pretended > > to respond to. Can't you handle the ease with which I met your feeble > > challenge? > > Oh, I know you're here just to beat your chest and challenge people to a > verbal sparring match. That's a false statement. It's impossible to know what's not. You either know that and are therefore lying, or don't know that and have been lying about the extent of your knowledge. Either way, you're a liar. > You have no interest in the physics. And that too is a lie. > You've said > so yourself And that too is a lie. > -- you don't have any hope of any gain from the little you've done, And that's just prejudicial bullshit. > so you have no motive to do any better. And that's another lie. ----delusional dribble snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 16:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsuian$6sr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394746 |
On 10/3/2016 3:50 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > For the experiment to be free of the assumption of wabe behaciour, > it must provide for testing and consideration of the alternative. > The earth's solar orbita; speed is about 30 km/s, yet there is no > provision, anywhere in either the design or the interpretation, > for considering the effects of light particles impacting a moving > reflector. You are making another error of historical fact. Theories of light that behave like particles include what are known as ballistic theories of light. The Michelson-Morley experiment is in fact fully consistent with ballistic theories of light, which was shown by a number of published papers in the early part of the 20th century, and which by the way is discussed in many books about relativity (which is decidedly NOT a ballistic theory). So your statement that particle theories of light were never even entertained by the physics community with respect to the Michelson-Morley experiment, is just bullshit fabricated from a position of abject ignorance and desert-like lack of reading. You have posted a 3-page "theory" which is full of errors, does not make any quantitative calculations or predictions (and so is untestable), does not demonstrate consistency with current data, shows that you do not understand basic physics concepts, and which is rightfully being ignored (i.e. not cited) by the physics community. You are leveling a rather insane charge that all physics work, both theoretical and experimental, since the discovery of the photoelectric effect is invalid, and you would like (apparently) for the state of physics to be rolled back to pre-1900 so that then your desire for a particle theory of light and matter be considered. Foam and slaver all you want, Ned. You really have nothing to offer. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 22:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5nfs.ept.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394749 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > For the experiment to be free of the assumption of wave behaciour, > > it must provide for testing and consideration of the alternative. > > The earth's solar orbita; speed is about 30 km/s, yet there is no > > provision, anywhere in either the design or the interpretation, > > for considering the effects of light particles impacting a moving > > reflector. > > You are making another error of historical fact. Nope. You are (at best) misreading me and/or your other sources. ----snip---- > The Michelson-Morley experiment is in fact fully consistent with > ballistic theories of light, Prove that statement. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt0fqg$1531$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394758 |
On 10/3/2016 5:38 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> The Michelson-Morley experiment is in fact fully consistent with >> ballistic theories of light, > > Prove that statement. For fuck's sake, read a book. No one owes you an education on usenet. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 02:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv8p7a.oet.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394810 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is in fact fully consistent with > > > ballistic theories of light, > > > > Prove that statement. > > For fuck's sake, read a book. No one owes you an education on usenet. Jeez, you're easy to suck in. When are you going to develop some comprehension? All you had to do is refer to *my* theory. Remember? Light is particulate? Which necessarily impies that it's ballistic. But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it or you haven't understood it. Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles impacting a moving reflector. Assertions made and rejected thirty of more years later don't cut it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 04:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9787f797-9d36-4b9e-b3db-d965ad2ec3b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394874 |
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:26:55 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > When are you going to develop some comprehension? All you had > to do is refer to *my* theory. Remember? Light is particulate? > Which necessarily impies that it's ballistic. Nope. Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > or you haven't understood it. Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe reality. > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > impacting a moving reflector. Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior (e.g., the photoelectric effect), and it also has wave-like behavior (e.g., refraction, superposition). > Assertions made and rejected thirty of more years later don't cut it. What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. That refutes ballistic theory. And if you REALLY had an interest in physics, you would know this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvacl9.ddt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394905 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: Context and attrinutions restored. > * Odd Bodkin wrote: > * > Ned Latham wrote: > * > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > * > > > > * > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is in fact fully consistent with > * > > > ballistic theories of light, > * > > > * > > Prove that statement. > * > > * > For fuck's sake, read a book. No one owes you an education on usenet. > * > * Jeez, you're easy to suck in. > > > > When are you going to develop some comprehension? All you had > > to do is refer to *my* theory. Remember? Light is particulate? > > Which necessarily impies that it's ballistic. > > Nope. Did you really think that your inept babble would gain credibility with your removal of Bodkin's statement above? > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. That's hypothesis, not observation. > > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > > or you haven't understood it. > > Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe > reality. Your uncertainty on the matter makes your prehudiced agenda quite clear. > > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > > impacting a moving reflector. > > Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior (e.g., the photoelectric effect), > and it also has wave-like behavior (e.g., refraction, superposition). Irrelevant. Try addressing the point. > > Assertions made and rejected thirty of more years later don't cut it. > > What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. That's hypothesis, not observation. Your evasion of the point above testifies to your own inability to support the hypothesis with anything like a validly designed and interpreted experiment. ----prejudiced babble snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt3ff2$1rgi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394928 |
On 10/5/2016 12:04 PM, Ned Latham wrote: >> What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. > That's hypothesis, not observation. Your evasion of the point above > testifies to your own inability to support the hypothesis with > anything like a validly designed and interpreted experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory See references therein for experimental tests of ballistic theories of light. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvb5fe.p18.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394933 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: Attribution restored. > * Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > > > What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. Your evasion of the point above > > testifies to your own inability to support the hypothesis with > > anything like a validly designed and interpreted experiment. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory > > See references therein for experimental tests of ballistic > theories of light. No thanks. Not interested in your straw man dingbattery. Tests based of SR theory? "Measurements" over "very short" distances? Mirrors become sources? Come off the grass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt5m7j$194c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394969 |
On 10/5/2016 7:08 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: > > Attribution restored. > >> * Gary Harnagel MD wrote: >>>> >>>> What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. >>> >>> That's hypothesis, not observation. Your evasion of the point above >>> testifies to your own inability to support the hypothesis with >>> anything like a validly designed and interpreted experiment. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory >> >> See references therein for experimental tests of ballistic >> theories of light. > > No thanks. Not interested in your straw man dingbattery. OK, so let's let it be noted that you have claimed that no particle theory of light has ever been seriously considered since the days of Young, and never at all considered in the context of the Michelson Morley experiment, and then let it be noted that when presented with references that show you to be factually incorrect on both counts, you decline to read them. Very good, Ned, that sets your stance perfectly. If nothing else, it explains why you have been ignored, and I'm sure you'll be happy if people on this newsgroup do the same. > > Tests based of SR theory? "Measurements" over "very short" distances? > Mirrors become sources? Come off the grass. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 02:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnve1n4.sds.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394996 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Attribution restored. > > > > > * Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. > > > > > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. Your evasion of the point above > > > > testifies to your own inability to support the hypothesis with > > > > anything like a validly designed and interpreted experiment. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory > > > > > > See references therein for experimental tests of ballistic > > > theories of light. > > > > No thanks. Not interested in your straw man dingbattery. > > OK, so let's let it be noted that you have claimed that no particle > theory of light has ever been seriously considered since the days of > Young, False. I have claimed that no particle model explanation of Young's theory have ever been canvassed. > and never at all considered in the context of the Michelson > Morley experiment, False. I stated that the design and interpretation of the experiment invalidly assumed wave behaviour. > and then let it be noted that when presented with > references that show you to be factually incorrect on both counts, you > decline to read them. False again. Not just false but a blatant lie: the mocking questions below are clear evidence that I *did* look. > Very good, Ned, that sets your stance perfectly. If nothing else, it > explains why you have been ignored, and I'm sure you'll be happy if > people on this newsgroup do the same. > > > Tests based of SR theory? "Measurements" over "very short" distances? > > Mirrors become sources? Come off the grass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81970adf-76ac-4910-afaf-19f6bb5faeae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394928 |
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 11:04:46 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > When are you going to develop some comprehension? All you had > > > to do is refer to *my* theory. Remember? Light is particulate? > > > Which necessarily impies that it's ballistic. > > > > Nope. > > Did you really think that your inept babble would gain credibility > with your removal of Bodkin's statement above? It stands on its own. You must be OCD > > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > > That's hypothesis, not observation. That IS observation, ignorant one. How is it that you don't know basic experimental physics? > > > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > > > or you haven't understood it. > > > > Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe > > reality. > > Your uncertainty on the matter makes your prehudiced agenda quite clear. Yes, I'm prejudiced against stupidity. “I’m allergic to stupidity. I break out in sarcasm.” – Rebels Market "Life's tough..... It's even tougher if you're stupid." -- John Wayne “Even duct tape can’t fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.” -- Summer Kerr “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.” -- Benjamin Franklin “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin > > > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > > > > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > > > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > > > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > > > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > > > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > > > impacting a moving reflector. > > > > Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior (e.g., the photoelectric effect), > > and it also has wave-like behavior (e.g., refraction, superposition). > > Irrelevant. Try addressing the point. I did. Are you too stupid to recognize it? > > > Assertions made and rejected thirty of more years later don't cut it. > > > > What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. > > That's hypothesis, not observation. Repeating bullshit doesn't change its smell. You obviously are wearing blinders to protect yourself from reality. > Your evasion of the point above > testifies to your own inability to support the hypothesis with > anything like a validly designed and interpreted experiment. > > ----prejudiced babble snipped---- Well, let's just see if what you snipped is "prejudiced babble': > > And if you REALLY had an interest in physics, you would know this This is IOTTMCO, which excludes you since you are blinded by your own prejudice. “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” -- Richard P. Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnve3fj.sds.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394997 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: Surreptitiously snipped text restored. > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > * > * > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > * > * > > > > * > * > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is in fact fully consistent > * > * > > > with ballistic theories of light, > * > * > > > * > * > > Prove that statement. > * > * > > * > * > For fuck's sake, read a book. No one owes you an education on > * > * > usenet. > * > * > * > * Jeez, you're easy to suck in. > > > > > > > > When are you going to develop some comprehension? All you had > > > > to do is refer to *my* theory. Remember? Light is particulate? > > > > Which necessarily impies that it's ballistic. > > > > > > Nope. > > > > Did you really think that your inept babble would gain credibility > > with your removal of Bodkin's statement above? > > It stands on its own. So you're arguing that a particle model of light is not necessarily a ballistic model? Do feel free to elucidate. > You must be OCD No. Despite your vicious wishes, I have permission to be otherwise. > > > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > > > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > That IS observation, ignorant one. Wrong. It's a wave-behaviour based interpretation of what was observed, It is not itself observation. > How is it that you don't know basic experimental physics? What I don't know is the level of your gullibility when faced with argument from authority. > > > > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > > > > or you haven't understood it. > > > > > > Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe > > > reality. > > > > Your uncertainty on the matter makes your prehugiced agenda quite clear. > > Yes, I'm prejudiced against stupidity. Wrong again. You're infatuated with it. ----snip---- > ???Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.??? > -- Benjamin Franklin > > ???Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.??? > -- Benjamin Franklin You'd have to be pretty old, Pointy Head, for Ben to have known you. BTW, do you think you could edit your pastes so that apostrophes show up as apostrophes? Or do you compose text as lazily and stupidly as you "think"? > > > > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > > > > > > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > > > > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > > > > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > > > > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > > > > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > > > > impacting a moving reflector. > > > > > > Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior > > > (e.g., the photoelectric effect), > > > and it also has wave-like behavior > > > (e.g., refraction, superposition). > > > > Irrelevant. Try addressing the point. > > I did. Wrong. The point is the flawed design of the experiment. > Are you too stupid to recognize it? You clearly are. > > > > Assertions made and rejected thirty of more years later don't cut it. > > > > > > What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > Repeating bullshit doesn't change its smell. I know. When are *you* going to get it into your pointy little head? ----prejudiced babble snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 21:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81ecebac-5a9d-4749-9530-1dd28df4d9ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395060 |
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > Did you really think that your inept babble would gain credibility > > > with your removal of Bodkin's statement above? > > > > It stands on its own. > > So you're arguing that a particle model of light is not necessarily > a ballistic model? You are beginning to see the light :-) > Do feel free to elucidate. I have done so in more ways than one. Were you standing behind the door when I explained it, or are you just very dense? > > You must be OCD > > No. Despite your vicious wishes, I have permission to be otherwise. Having permission does not mean that you actually perform. And it's obvious that you don't. > > > > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > > > > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > > > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > > > That IS observation, ignorant one. > > Wrong. By what authority do you make such a ridiculous assertion? > It's a wave-behaviour based interpretation of what was observed, > It is not itself observation. Why do you believe your assertion makes any sense at all? "Wave-behavior" is what waves do. Maybe you should study up on "electron diffraction" before you make such stupid claims. > > How is it that you don't know basic experimental physics? > > What I don't know is the level of your gullibility when faced with > argument from authority. My arguments are from experiments, not authority. You would do well to do the same instead of generating delusional nonsense that is easily refuted. > > > > > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > > > > > or you haven't understood it. > > > > > > > > Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe > > > > reality. > > > > > > Your uncertainty on the matter makes your prehugiced agenda quite clear. > > > > Yes, I'm prejudiced against stupidity. > > Wrong again. You're infatuated with it. Yes, I'm like Carl Icahn: “Some people study artificial intelligence. I study natural stupidity.” -- Carl Icahn > > "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do." > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > You'd have to be pretty old, Pointy Head, for Ben to have known you. I am :-) > BTW, do you think you could edit your pastes so that apostrophes > show up as apostrophes? Or do you compose text as lazily and > stupidly as you "think"? The quotes show up correctly in my post. It must be due to your processer that is confused by reality, just like you are. > > > > > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > > > > > > > > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > > > > > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > > > > > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > > > > > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > > > > > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > > > > > impacting a moving reflector. > > > > > > > > Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior > > > > (e.g., the photoelectric effect), > > > > and it also has wave-like behavior > > > > (e.g., refraction, superposition). > > > > > > Irrelevant. Try addressing the point. > > > > I did. > > Wrong. The point is the flawed design of the experiment. Nope. You refuse to accept reality. Light can be thought of as particles, but by the de Broglie relationship, it still has wave-like behavior. Or it can be thought of as waves, but by the same relationship it still has particle-like behavior. Learn something about electrons which exhibit the same behavior. > > Are you too stupid to recognize it? > > You clearly are. I recognize MUCH more about reality than you do. For example, I recognize that anyone who claims "light is particles and therefore obeys the ballistic theory" is stupider than dirt. > > > > > Assertions made and rejected thirty of more years later don't cut it. > > > > > > > > What's clear is that ALL objects are limited by the speed of light. > > > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > > > Repeating bullshit doesn't change its smell. > > I know. When are *you* going to get it into your pointy little head? See? You insist on being stupider than dirt. “Stupid is forever, ignorance can be fixed.” -- Don Wood
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 06:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvefdv.6ro.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395065 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > > > > Did you really think that your inept babble would gain credibility > > > > with your removal of Bodkin's statement above? > > > > > > It stands on its own. > > > > So you're arguing that a particle model of light is not necessarily > > a ballistic model? > > You are beginning to see the light :-) Oh FFS. You actually think that's wiricism? > > Do feel free to elucidate. > > I have done so in more ways than one. Bullshit. ----snip---- > > > You must be OCD > > > > No. Despite your vicious wishes, I have permission to be otherwise. > > Having permission does not mean that you actually perform. Didn't say it does, moron. Learn to read. ====smip---- > > > > > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > > > > > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > > > > > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > > > > > That IS observation, ignorant one. > > > > Wrong. > > By what authority do you make such a ridiculous assertion? I don't argue from authority, Pointy Head. ----snip---- > > It's a wave-behaviour based interpretation of what was observed, > > It is not itself observation. > > Why do you believe your assertion makes any sense at all? "Wave-behavior" > is what waves do. Feel free to show how particles do it. > Maybe you should study up on "electron diffraction" > before you make such stupid claims. See? That's a wave-berhaviour interpretation of what was onserved. > > > How is it that you don't know basic experimental physics? > > > > What I don't know is the level of your gullibility when faced with > > argument from authority. > > My arguments are from experiments, not authority. Bullshit. ----snip---- > > > > > > But yet again, you demonstrate that you either haben't read it > > > > > > or you haven't understood it. > > > > > > > > > > Or, much more likely, Bodkin DID understand that it doesn't describe > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > Your uncertainty on the matter makes your prehugiced agenda quite clear. > > > > > > Yes, I'm prejudiced against stupidity. > > > > Wrong again. You're infatuated with it. > > Yes, I'm like Carl Icahn: > > "Some people study artificial intelligence. I study natural stupidity." > -- Carl Icahn One day, if you try real hard, you just might climb to that height. > > > "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do." > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > You'd have to be pretty old, Pointy Head, for Ben to have known you. > > I am :-) Went right over your head, huh? You really are a sad case, Pointy. > > BTW, do you think you could edit your pastes so that apostrophes > > show up as apostrophes? Or do you compose text as lazily and > > stupidly as you "think"? > > The quotes show up correctly in my post. It must be due to your > processer that is confused by reality, just like you are. You do like saying that things *must* be so, don't you. Typical true believer babble. Try to get this into your pointy little head, Pointy Head: other people's quotes show up fine. The problem isn't my "processor", it's your use of Google groups instead of a decent Usenet client. > > > > > > Address the point I put, you moron. Here it is, back again: > > > > > > > > > > > > For the [Michelson-Morley] experiment to be free of the assumption > > > > > > of wave behaviour, it must provide for testing and consideration of > > > > > > the alternative. The earth's solar orbital speed is about 30 km/s, > > > > > > yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the > > > > > > interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles > > > > > > impacting a moving reflector. > > > > > > > > > > Light CERTAINLY has particle-like behavior > > > > > (e.g., the photoelectric effect), > > > > > and it also has wave-like behavior > > > > > (e.g., refraction, superposition). > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. Try addressing the point. > > > > > > I did. > > > > Wrong. The point is the flawed design of the experiment. > > Nope. You refuse to accept reality. Wrong. Iy's just that I try to ecourage morons like you to improve themselves, and thus make reality more palatable. > Light can be thought of as particles, > but by the de Broglie relationship, it still has wave-like behavior. Or it > can be thought of as waves, but by the same relationship it still has > particle-like behavior. Irrelevant. Read the text above. This time try to engage your neuron. > Learn something about electrons which exhibit the > same behavior. Pffft. So do buckyballs. BFD. > > > Are you too stupid to recognize it? > > > > You clearly are. > > I recognize MUCH more about reality than you do. Your delusions aren't reality, Pointy Head. > For example, I recognize that anyone who claims "light is particles > and therefore obeys the ballistic theory" is stupider than dirt. But there *is* no-one stupider than you. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <865991ab-b72a-4f57-ad68-f9ab2e05084f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395069 |
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 12:16:33 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MS Physics wrote: > > > > Ned Latham, the eternal crank wrote: > > > > > > So you're arguing that a particle model of light is not necessarily > > > a ballistic model? > > > > You are beginning to see the light :-) > > Oh FFS. You actually think that's wiricism? Gobbledegook, but that's what cranks do. > > > Do feel free to elucidate. > > > > I have done so in more ways than one. > > Bullshit. So you don't like the truth. That's typical of cranks. > > > No. Despite your vicious wishes, I have permission to be otherwise. > > > > Having permission does not mean that you actually perform. > > Didn't say it does, moron. Learn to read. I read it correctly. Your claim had no meaning whatsoever. It was just yammering. > > > > > > Electrons and protons are "particulate," too, yet they don't > > > > > > behave "ballistically" when they approach the speed of light. > > > > > > > > > > That's hypothesis, not observation. > > > > > > > > That IS observation, ignorant one. > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > By what authority do you make such a ridiculous assertion? > > I don't argue from authority, Pointy Head. Right. You argue from idiocy. > > > It's a wave-behaviour based interpretation of what was observed, > > > It is not itself observation. > > > > Why do you believe your assertion makes any sense at all? "Wave-behavior" > > is what waves do. > > Feel free to show how particles do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Experimental_confirmation > > Maybe you should study up on "electron diffraction" > > before you make such stupid claims. > > See? That's a wave-berhaviour interpretation of what was onserved. That's another nonsense assertion you seem to enjoy making. You don't seem to understand reality: EVERYTHING we "know" about the universe is interpretation. All we "know" amounts to electrical signals received by our brains. Your brain seems to be having trouble spelling. > > > > How is it that you don't know basic experimental physics? > > > > > > What I don't know is the level of your gullibility when faced with > > > argument from authority. > > > > My arguments are from experiments, not authority. > > Bullshit. Yes, you certainly spew a LOT of that. > > > > Yes, I'm prejudiced against stupidity. > > > > > > Wrong again. You're infatuated with it. > > > > Yes, I'm like Carl Icahn: > > > > "Some people study artificial intelligence. I study natural stupidity." > > -- Carl Icahn > > One day, if you try real hard, you just might climb to that height. I'm studying YOU right now. You are a classic case. > > > > "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do." > > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > > > "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." > > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > You'd have to be pretty old, Pointy Head, for Ben to have known you. > > > > I am :-) > > Went right over your head, huh? You really are a sad case, Pointy. So you have no sense of humor. Another classic example of a crank. > > > BTW, do you think you could edit your pastes so that apostrophes > > > show up as apostrophes? Or do you compose text as lazily and > > > stupidly as you "think"? > > > > The quotes show up correctly in my post. It must be due to your > > processer that is confused by reality, just like you are. > > You do like saying that things *must* be so, don't you. Typical > true believer babble. Try to get this into your pointy little head, > Pointy Head: other people's quotes show up fine. The problem isn't > my "processor", it's your use of Google groups instead of a decent > Usenet client. So if you're so prejudiced against google groups, why do you post here? Typical crank behavior: Irratonal. > > > Wrong. The point is the flawed design of the experiment. > > > > Nope. You refuse to accept reality. > > Wrong. Iy's just that I try to ecourage morons like you to > improve themselves, and thus make reality more palatable. You are living in your own fantasy world. Typical of cranks and kooks. > > Light can be thought of as particles, > > but by the de Broglie relationship, it still has wave-like behavior. Or it > > can be thought of as waves, but by the same relationship it still has > > particle-like behavior. > > Irrelevant. Au contraire, cochon. It is MOST relevant. > Read the text above. This time try to engage your neuron. Cranks like you have defective neurons. > > Learn something about electrons which exhibit the > > same behavior. > > Pffft. So do buckyballs. BFD. Then why don't you write a treatise on the wave-like nature of buckyballs. > > I recognize MUCH more about reality than you do. > > Your delusions aren't reality, Pointy Head. Define "reality," kook-head. Everyone has delusions. Your delusions cause you to believe everyone else is an idiot. Mine are more limited. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein > > For example, I recognize that anyone who claims "light is particles > > and therefore obeys the ballistic theory" is stupider than dirt. > > But there *is* no-one stupider than you. That's just another one of your delusions. You certainly do have a LOT of them. One of them is believing particles are particles, waves are waves and never the twain shall meet. That flies in the face of experiment. Cranks and kooks like you distain experimental evidence. Another delusion of yours is that diffraction is caused by gravitational attraction. The LEAST you could do is claim that gravity is stronger at short distances. You would be in some good company if you did that. But you don't, so anyone who has some competency with math can see that ordinary gravitation is incapable of doing what you claim. Cranks and kooks are usually math-incompetent, just like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvg1dn.stt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395102 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > So you're arguing that a particle model of light is not necessarily > > > > a ballistic model? > > > > > > You are beginning to see the light :-) > > > > Oh FFS. You actually think that's witticism? > > Gobbledegook, That's more like it. > but that's what cranks do. Don't flatter yourself. Yoi don't have the wit to be a crank. ----further idiot projections snipped---- > > > > It's a wave-behaviour based interpretation of what was observed, > > > > It is not itself observation. > > > > > > Why do you believe your assertion makes any sense at all? "Wave-behavior" > > > is what waves do. > > > > Feel free to show how particles do it. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Experimental_confirmation See the invitation above, Pointy Head. See the words "feel free to show how", Pointy Head. Try to get it into your pointy little head, Poiny Head: stating that something occurs is not *showing how* it occurs. ----remaining idiot projections snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web